Dear Atty. Maan,

My colleague and I were hired as PE teachers in a relatively known college. After six years of employment, we were terminated by the school’s management for a trivial issue involving the students. Thereafter, we filed a case of illegal dismissal against the school. Having proven that the said issue was indeed not true, we won the case and our reinstatement was ordered. Due to the previous issues, tension between us and some of the officers of the school is evident. Can we decline the reinstatement order?

Josh

□□□□□

Dear Josh,

Under the law and prevailing jurisprudence, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. Over the years, however, the case law developed that where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient or practical, as where reinstatement would only exacerbate the tension and strained relations between the parties, or where the relationship between the employer and employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement.

As reinstatement is the rule, for the exception of strained relations to apply, it should be proved that the employee concerned occupies a position where he/she enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer; and that it is likely that if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism would be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned. Strained relations must be of such nature or degree as to preclude reinstatement. (Nippon Express Philippines Corporation v. Daguiso, G.R. No. 217970, 17 June 2020)

However, if the reinstatement is indeed not feasible, under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On one hand, such payment liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust. (Golden Ace Builders v. Talde, G.R. No. 187200, 5 May 2010)

Hope this helps.

Atty. Mary Antonnette Baudi