SUBSCRIBE NOW SUPPORT US

Strained relations

Strained relations
Published on

Dear Atty. Peachy,

My colleague and I worked as professors at a well-known college for six years before we were dismissed over a minor student-related issue. We filed a case for illegal dismissal and won, with the court ordering our reinstatement. However, given the evident tension with some school officials, can we decline reinstatement?

Angel

□□□□□

Dear Angel,

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.

Strained relations
Illegal dismissal

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. Peachy Gregorio

Latest Stories

No stories found.
logo
Daily Tribune
tribune.net.ph