You are on page 1of 1


dismissal. Further, the Court notes that the LA, NLRC, and CA unanimously found
J. Carpio | April 2, 2014 that Janrie was illegally dismissed by Emeritus.

TOPIC: Reinstatement – Art. 294 (279) Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial
Exceptions to reinstatement despite ID evidence, are accorded respect, even finality by the SC, more so when they coincide
with those of the LA. Such factual findings are given more weight when the same are
In Aug. 2000, Emeritus hired Janrie as a security guard. During his employment, affirmed by the CA. The Court finds no reason to depart from the foregoing rule.
Janrie was assigned to various clients, the last being Panasonic in Calamba starting
Dec. 16, 2004. On Dec. 10, 2005, Janrie was relieved from his post. 2. If Janrie was illegally dismissed, WON he is entitled to separation pay instead of
On Jan. 27, 2006, Janrie sued for underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday
pay, premium pay for rest day and underpayment of ECOLA before DOLE NCR. The NO. Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines mandates the reinstatement of
hearing officer recommended its dismissal since the claims were already paid. an illegally dismissed employee. Reinstatement is the general rule, while the award of
separation pay is the exception. The circumstances warranting the grant of separation
On Jun. 16, 2006, Janrie sued for illegal dismissal and payment of separation pay pay, in lieu of reinstatement, are laid down by the Court in Globe-Mackay Cable and
against Emeritus before the NLRC. On Jul. 14, 2006, Janrie filed another complaint Radio Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission:
for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries and non-payment of full backwages
before the NLRC. Janrie argued that if an employee is on floating status for more than Over time, the following reasons have been advanced by the Court for denying
6 months; such employee is deemed illegally dismissed. reinstatement under the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto:
 That reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the long passage of time
Emeritus denied dismissing Janrie. Emeritus admitted that it relieved Janrie from his (22 years of litigation) or because of the realities of the situation;
last assignment; however, Emeritus required Janrie to report within 48 hours from  That it would be ‘inimical to the employer’s interest;’ or that reinstatement may no
receipt of the order of relief and Janrie allegedly failed to comply. Emeritus claimed longer be feasible;
that on Jan. 27, 2006, it sent Janrie a notice to report within 72 hours from receipt.  That it will not serve the best interests of the parties involved;
Emeritus further alleged that it informed Janrie that he had been absent without  That the company would be prejudiced by the workers’ continued employment;
official leave for Jan. 2006 and that his failure to report within 72 hours from receipt  That it will not serve any prudent purpose as when supervening facts have
would mean that he was no longer interested to continue his employment. transpired making reinstatement unjust or inequitable or, to an increasing extent,
due to the atmosphere of ‘antipathy and antagonism’ or ‘strained relations’ or
Emeritus also claimed that there was no showing that Janrie was prevented from ‘irretrievable estrangement’ between the employer and the employee.
returning to work and that it consistently manifested its willingness to reinstate him to
his former position. In addition, the fact that there was no termination letter sent to Janrie admits receiving a reinstatement notice from Emeritus. Thereafter, he was
Janrie purportedly proves that Janrie was not dismissed. assigned to one of Emeritus’ clients. However, Janrie points out that he was not
reinstated by Emeritus but was employed by another company, Emme Security and
LA: Janrie have been illegally dismissed. Maintenance Systems, Inc. (Emme). Thus, for him, he was not reinstated at all.
 Ordered Emeritus to reinstate Janrie and pay him backwages from his
illegal dismissal until reinstatement. Emeritus counters that Emme is its sister company with the same Board of Directors
 Denied Janrie’s claim for underpayment for lack of merit. and officers, thus Emeritus and Emme are in effect one and the same corporation.
Considering Emeritus’ undisputed claim that Emeritus and Emme are one and the
NLRC: Dismissed Emeritus’ appeal for lack of merit. same, there is no basis in Janrie’s allegation that he was not reinstated. Besides,
 Also denied Emeritus’ MFR. Janrie assails the corporate personalities of Emeritus and Emme only in his Comment
filed before this Court. Further, Janrie did not appeal the LA’s reinstatement order.
CA: Affirmed the LA and NLRC.
 However, the CA set aside LA and NLRC’s reinstatement order. Contrary to the CA’s ruling, there is nothing showing any strained relations between
 Instead, the CA ordered payment of separation pay. the parties to warrant the award of separation pay. There is neither allegation nor
proof that such animosity existed between petitioner and respondent.
Considering that (1) Emeritus reinstated Janrie, and (2) there is no ground to justify
1. WON Janrie was illegally dismissed? the grant of separation pay, the CA erred in ordering the payment than reinstatement.

YES. The Court agrees with the ruling of the LA, NLRC and CA that a floating status DISPOSITIVE LA decision REINSTATED
of a security guard, such as Janrie, for more than six months constitutes constructive