Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
were hired and for as long as such activities exist. In this relation, the Court petitioner Convoy Marketing effective that date. In July 26, 2004, Albia filed
clarifies that Pontesor, et al. were not project employees of petitioner, who a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of wage benefits. In
were validly terminated upon the completion of their respective defense, Convoy Marketing contended that Albia was not an employee but
University of Santo Tomas (UST) vs. Samahang Manggagawa Ng UST,
projects/undertakings. x x x As aptly held by the CA, Pontesor, et al. could an independent contractor. Petitioners presented a series of delivery
et.al., G.R. No. 184262, April 24, 2017).
not be considered as project employees because the specific undertakings agency agreements signed by Albia to correspond to particular periods of
Almirante: Regularized casual employees Friday, January 26, 2018 By or projects for which they were employed were not clearly delineated. This service. Did the defense prosper?
DOMINADOR A. ALMIRANTE LABOR CASE DIGEST is evidenced by the vagueness of the project descriptions set forth in their
respective CEAs, which states that they were tasked “to assist” in various Ruling: No. Contrary to petitioners’ claim, the fact that Convoy has 15
RESPONDENTS Samahang Manggagawa Ng UST, Fernando Pontesor and 3 carpentry, electrical, and masonry work. In fact, when the aforesaid CEAs regular drivers only underscores that indeed, having been hired as a driver,
others filed a complaint for regularization and illegal dismissal against are pieced together, it appears that during the years 1990 to 1999, Albia was engaged to perform an activity which is necessary or desirable in
petitioner University of Santo Tomas (UST). They alleged that on various Pontesor, et al. were each engaged to perform all-around maintenance the usual company business of marketing and distribution of bottled
periods spanning the years 1990-1999, petitioner repeatedly hired them to services throughout the various facilities/installations in petitioner’s wines, liquor and bottled water. No less than Convoy’s daily trip summary
perform various maintenance duties within its campus, i.e., as laborer, campus. Thus, it seems that petitioner, through the CEAs, merely attempted breakdowns contradict petitioners’ allegation that Albia is only an on-call
mason, tinsmith, painter, electrician, welder and carpenter. They argued to compartmentalize Pontesor, et al.’s various tasks into purported driver who does not have to report for work daily. That Albia has become a
that their jobs are necessary and desirable to the business of petitioner in “projects” so as to make it appear that they were hired on a per-project regular employee is evident from the delivery agency agreements (for
the maintenance of its rooms, buildings, and facilities. On the other hand, basis. Verily, the Court cannot countenance this practice as to do so would driver) - executed for the periods of Nov. 22, 2002 to April 22, 2003, May
petitioner maintained that respondents were merely hired on a per-project effectively permit petitioners to avoid hiring permanent or regular 29, 2003 to Oct. 29, 2003, Nov. 11, 2003 to April 10, 2004, and April 13,
basis, as evidenced by numerous contractual employee appointments employees by simply hiring them on a temporary or casual basis, thereby 2004 to Sept. 13, 2004 - which indicate that he had rendered at least one
(CEAs) signed by them. Each of the CEAs defined the nature and term of violating the employees’ security of tenure relative to their jobs. x x x In year of broken service with respect to the same activity in which he was
the project to which they are assigned. Their project employment were view of the foregoing, Pontesor, et al. should, as discussed earlier, be employed from the time he was hired as a driver on Nov. 22, 2002 until he
automatically terminated: (a) upon the expiration of the specific term considered regularized casual employees who enjoy, inter alia, security of was terminated on July 23, 2004. The Court cannot likewise sustain
specified in the CEA; (b) when the project is completed ahead of such tenure. Accordingly, they cannot be terminated from employment without petitioners’ claim that Albia is an independent contractor. The test of
expiration; or (c) in cases when their employment was extended due to the any just and/or authorized cause, which unfortunately, petitioner was independent contractorship is whether one claiming to be an independent
non-completion of the specific project for which they were hired, upon the guilty of doing in this case. Hence, Pontesor, et al. must be reinstated to contractor has contracted to do the work according to his own methods
completion of the said project. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set their former or equivalent positions, with full backwages and without loss and without being subject to the control of the employer, except only as to
aside the resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) of seniority rights. As pointed out by the LA, the NLRC Computation & the results of the work. The criteria in determining the existence of an
and reinstated the decision of the Labor Arbiter (LA) declaring Examination Unit should be directed to compute the monetary awards that independent and permissible contractor relationship are as follows: x x x
respondents as regular employees of petitioner. Did the CA err? Ruling: No. petitioner should be ordered to pay Pontesor, et al. as a consequence of this Whether or not the contractor is carrying on an independent business; the
Under the foregoing provision (Art. 295 [280]), the law provides for two ruling. (Perlas-Bernabe, J., SC 1st Division, University of Santo Tomas nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of
types of regular employees, namely: (a) those who are engaged to perform (UST) vs. Samahang Manggagawa Ng UST, et.al., G.R. No. 184262, April the relationship; the right to assign the performance of a specified piece of
activities, which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or 24, 2017). work; the control and supervision of the work to another; the employer’s
trade of the employer (first category); and (b) those who have rendered at power with respect to the hiring, firing and payment of the contractor’s
least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to 16. REGULAR NOT INDEPENDENT workers; the control of the premises; the duty to supply the premises,
the activity in which they are employed (second category). x x x In the case tools, appliances, materials, and labor; and the mode, manner and terms of
at bar, a review of Pontesor, et al.’s respective CEAs reveal that petitioner Convoy Marketing Corporation And/Or Arnold Laab vs. Oliver B. payment. Applying the foregoing criteria, Albia cannot be considered as an
repeatedly rehired them for various positions in the nature of maintenance Albia, G.R. No. 194969, October 07, 2015). independent contractor. There is no dispute that it was Convoy who
workers, such as laborer, mason, painter, tinsmith, electrician, carpenter, Almirante: Not a contractor but a regular employee LABOR CASE DIGEST engaged the services of Albia as a driver without the intervention of a third
and welder, for various periods spanning the years 1990-1999. Akin to the RESPONDENT Oliver B. Albia was hired in 2001 by petitioner Convoy party, paid his wages on a per trip basis, and abruptly terminated his
situation of the employees in Kimberly, Pontesor, et al.’s nature of work are Marketing Corp. as a pahinante or one who loads and unloads cargoes services the next day after admitting to have consumed three bottles of
not necessary and desirable to petitioner’s usual business as an transported to customers by the delivery vehicles of the company. A year beer after finishing his deliveries on July 22, 2004. There is, likewise, no
educational institution; hence, removing them from the ambit of the first later, he was promoted to delivery van driver. He was paid a fixed salary of question that Convoy controls or has reserved its right to control Albia’s
category of regular employees under Article 295 of the Labor Code. P290 per trip regardless of route. The delivery van he drove was owned by conduct, not only as to the result of his work but also as to the means and
Nonetheless, it is clear that their respective cumulative periods of the company, which shouldered its maintenance and gasoline costs. In July methods by which such result is to be accomplished.
employment as per their respective CEAs each exceed one year. Thus, 22, 2004, he was detected to have smelled of liquor upon his arrival from
Pontesor, et al. fall under the second category of regular employees under the delivery route. He was reported to the logistics manager, petitioner 17. REINSTATEMENT
Article 295 of the Labor Code. Accordingly, they should be deemed as Arnold Laab. In a memorandum on July 23, the next day, he was told that
regular employees but only with respect to the activities for which they management decided to terminate his delivery agency agreement with
Froilan M. Bergonio, Jr., et. al. vs. South East Asian decision. We find no grave abuse of discretion attended the NLRC’s Almirante: Certified copies of annexes Friday, March 16, 2018 By
July 16, 2008 resolution that affirmed the March 13, 2008 decision of DOMINADOR A. ALMIRANTE LABOR CASE DIGEST PETITIONER Luis S.
Airlines and Irene Dornier, G.R. No. 195227, April 21,
the LA granting the release of the garnished amount. Doble, Jr. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for
2014). reinstatement and payment of backwages, other monetary claims and
damages against respondents ABB, Inc. and Nitin Desai. Dissatisfied with
Almirante: Accrued wages 18. RESIGNATION; CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL?
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) decision and resolution,
petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA).
IN A decision dated May 31, 2005, the Labor Arbiter (LA) found the (Peralta, J., SC 2nd Div., Luis S. Doble, Jr. v. ABB In. and Nitin Desai, G.R.
The CA dismissed outright the petition because “the assailed National
petitioners Froilan M. Bergonio Jr. and nine others illegally dismissed No. 215627, June 5, 2017).
and ordered respondents South East Asian Airlines and Irene Dornier, Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Decision and Resolution attached are
among others, to immediately reinstate the petitioners with full back mere ‘CERTIFIED PHOTOCOP (IES)’ and not duplicate originals or certified
In illegal dismissal cases, the fundamental rule is that when an employer
wages. For failure of respondents to reinstate petitioners despite interposes the defense of resignation, the burden to prove that the employee true copies.” The CA also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
respondents’ manifestation to reinstate them in the payroll, the indeed voluntarily resigned necessarily rests upon the employer. 24 The concepts because the NLRC decision and resolution attached to the petition were
of constructive dismissal and resignation are discussed in Gan v. Galderma certified “photo” copies, unlike the specific requirement for a certified
petitioners filed before the LA a manifestation for their immediate Philippines, Inc., 25 thus:
reinstatement. On Oct. 3, 2005, respondents filed an opposition to the “true” copy, or a “clearly legible duplicate original or certified true copy” of
motion. On Jan. 31, 2008, the petitioners filed with the LA an Urgent Ex- the assailed disposition. Did the CA commit a reversible error? Ruling: Yes.
To begin with, constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or cessation of work
Parte Motion for the Immediate Release of the Garnished Amount, because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or First, the CA gravely erred in dismissing the petition on the ground that the
which was granted. In its July 16, 2008 resolution, the National Labor unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other assailed NLRC decision and resolution attached are mere “certified
benefits. It exists if an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an photocopies” and not duplicate originals or certified true copies. The CA’s
Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed in toto the LA’s order. It denied employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it could
the respondents’ motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. The Court foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. There is inordinate nitpicking on procedural requirements is contrary to the Court’s
of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the decision and resolution of involuntary resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set ruling in Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Cabalo, 516 Phil. 327 (2006): The
by the employer. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable problem presented is not novel. In fact, it is a fairly recurrent one in
the NLRC. It ruled further that the computation of petitioners’ accrued person in the employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his
wages stopped when they failed to report for work on Feb. 24, 2006 per employment/position under the circumstances. petitions for certiorari of NLRC decisions as it seems to be the practice of
respondents’ memorandum of Feb. 21, 2006. the NLRC to issue certified “Xerox copies” only instead of certified “true
On the other hand, "[r]esignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a copies.” We have, however, put an end to this issue in Quintano v. NLRC
Did the CA err? Ruling: Yes. Our careful consideration of the facts and situation where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor when we declared that there is no substantial distinction between a
the circumstances that surrounded the case convinced us that the delay of the exigency of the service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate photocopy or a “Xerox copy” and a “true copy” for as long as the photocopy
oneself from employment. It is a formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an
in the reinstatement pending appeal was due to the respondents’ fault. office, with the intention of relinquishing the office accompanied by the act of is certified by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office
For one, the respondents filed several pleadings to suspend the relinquishment. As the intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of involved or his duly-authorized representative and that the same is a
execution of the LA’s reinstatement order, i.e., the opposition to the relinquishment, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation faithful reproduction of the original. We held therein: The submission of
must be considered in determining whether he or she, in fact, intended to sever
petitioners’ motion for execution filed on Oct. 3, 2005; the motion to the duplicate original or certified true copy of judgment, order, resolution
his or her employment."26
quash the Oct. 7, 2005 writ of execution with prayer to hold in abeyance or ruling subject of a petition for certiorari is essential to determine
the implementation of the reinstatement order; and the motion to whether the court, body or tribunal, which rendered the same, indeed,
Since Doble claims to have been forced to submit a resignation letter, it is
suspend the order for the petitioners’ reinstatement filed on Feb. 28, incumbent upon him to prove with clear and convincing evidence that his committed grave abuse of discretion. The provision states that either a
2006 after the LA issued the Feb. 16, 2006 alias writ of execution. resignation was not voluntary, but was actually a case of constructive legible duplicate original or certified true copy thereof shall be submitted.
These pleadings, to our mind, show a determined effort on the dismissal, i.e., a product of coercion or intimidation. 37 Coercion exists when there
is a reasonable or well-grounded fear of an imminent evil upon a person or his If what is submitted is a copy, then it is required that the same is certified
respondents’ part to prevent or suspend the execution of the property or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office involved or his
reinstatement pending appeal. All told, the delay was due to the acts of ascendants.38 The requisites for intimidation to vitiate one's consent are stated duly-authorized representative. The purpose for this requirement is not
the respondents that we find were unjustified. We reiterate and in St. Michael Academy v. NLRC,39thus:
difficult to see. It is to assure that such copy is a faithful reproduction of the
emphasize, Article 223, paragraph 3, of the Labor Code mandates the judgment, order, resolution or ruling subject of the petition. x x x x x x x x x
employer to immediately reinstate the dismissed employee, either by .... (1) that the intimidation caused the consent to be given; (2) that the
threatened act be unjust or unlawful; (3) that the threat be real or serious, there Indeed, for all intents and purposes, a certified photo copy is no different
actually reinstating him/her under the conditions prevailing prior to the being evident disproportion between the evil and the resistance which all men from a certified true copy of the original document. The operative word in
dismissal or, at the option of the employer, in the payroll. The can offer, leading to the choice of doing the act which is forced on the person to the term certified true copy under Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court
respondents’ failure to exercise either option rendered them liable for do as the lesser evil; and (4) that it produces a well-grounded fear from the fact
that the person from whom it comes has the necessary means or ability to inflict is certified. The word means made certain. It comes from the Latin word
the petitioners’ accrued salary until the LA decision was reversed by the
the threatened injury to his person or property x x x. certificare meaning, to make certain. Thus, as long as the copy of the
CA on Dec. 17, 2008. We find that the NLRC, in affirming the release of
assailed judgment, order, resolution or ruling submitted to the court has
the garnished amount, merely implemented the mandate of Article 223;
been certified by the proper officer of the court, tribunal, agency or office
it recognized as immediate and self-executory the reinstatement aspect
involved or his duly-authorized representative and that the same is a
of the LA’s decision. Accordingly, we reverse for legal errors the CA
faithful reproduction thereof, then the requirement of the law has been month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure; and,
complied with. It is presumed that, before making the certification, the being considered as one whole year.
authorized representative had compared the photocopy with the original (5) That the employer uses fair and reasonable criteria in ascertaining who
Doubtless, under this provision, the retirement age is primarily would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees,
and found the same a faithful reproduction thereof. In this case, a perusal
determined by the existing agreement or employment contract. Only in the such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial
of the attached NLRC decision and resolution shows that they are indeed hardship for certain workers.
absence of such an agreement shall the retirement age be fixed by law,
certified photocopies of the said decision and resolution. Each page of the which provides for a compulsory retirement age at 65 years, while the The absence of one element renders the retrenchment scheme an irregular
NLRC Decision and the Resolution has been certified by the NLRC Sixth minimum age for optional retirement is set at 60 years. 25cralawred exercise of management prerogative. The employer's obligation to exhaust
Division’s Deputy Clerk of Court, lawyer Cherry P. Sarmiento, who is all other means to avoid further losses without retrenching its employees
undisputedly the proper officer to make such certification. Moreover, the Retirement plans allowing employers to retire employees who have not yet is a component of the first element enumerated above. To impart
attached copies of the NLRC decision and resolution appear to be faithful reached the compulsory retirement age of 65 years are not per se operational meaning to the constitutional policy of providing full
repugnant to the constitutional guaranty of security of tenure. By its protection to labor, the employer's prerogative to bring down labor costs
reproductions. Thus, there is substantial compliance with Section 1, Rule
express language, the Labor Code permits employers and employees to fix by retrenching must be exercised essentially as a measure of last resort,
65 of the Rules of Court, which provides that any petition filed under Rule after less drastic means have been tried and found wanting. [42]
the applicable retirement age at 60 years or below, provided that the
65 should be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order employees' retirement benefits under any CBA and other agreements shall
or resolution subject thereof not be less than those provided therein. PAL has insisted that the NLRC erroneously relied on an inexistent CA
decision, and therefore its decision is void, but the CA in its resolution of
Here, the Court is of the view that the quitclaim was validly executed. For September 27, 2012 has concluded that "[a] perusal of the Decision of the
19. RETIREMENT PLAN the consideration of the quitclaim, Sagaysay received the amount of NLRC shows that it is not without basis," [43] that the NLRC "made findings
P98,376.14. As admitted by him, the amount was based on a liquidation of facts, analyzed the legal aspects of the case taking into consideration the
G.R. No. 214961, September 16, 2015 data sheet which showed the computation of benefits and emoluments of a evidence presented and formed conclusions after noting the relevant facts
rank and file employee.41 Understandably, the amount given would not of the case."[44] But more importantly, the Court cannot lose sight of the
reflect the retirement benefits he demanded because he did not qualify settled rule that in illegal dismissal cases, the onus to prove that the
BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC., Petitioner, v. GUILLERMO C. under the retirement plan of BDO for he had not completed five (5) years employee was not dismissed, or if dismissed, that his dismissal was not
SAGAYSAY, Respondent. of service upon his compulsory retirement. Thus, the consideration illegal, rests on the employer, and that its failure to discharge this burden
WHETHER THE RETIREMENT PLAN IS VALID AND EFFECTIVE AND, provided in the quitclaim was justified and reasonable. signifies that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.
CONSEQUENTLY, THE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE OF 60 YEARS [45]
Unfortunately, in this petition, PAL has advanced no such justification
OLD IS ALSO BINDING whatsoever to dismiss or retrench the respondents. The Court is left with
WHETHER THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE, WAIVER AND QUITCLAIM
20. RETRENCHMENT REQUISITES
no conclusion: PAL's petition is misleading and clearly baseless and
BY RESPONDENT IS VALID.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary dilatory.
GR No. 203932, Jun 08, 2016 ]PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v.
The Court finds the petition meritorious. ENRIQUE LIGAN + WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality.
Ampeloquio is correct in asserting that he is a senior employee compared to the The phrase without loss of seniority rights applies with practical and real effect to When [Ampeloquio] was reinstated on August 6, 2004, he is entitled to receive a
other merchandisers whom he himself designates as casual or contractual Ampeloquio upon his retirement because he will reach earlier than other regular salary under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal,
provided this complies with the minimum wage law prevailing at the time of undeserving and those who are unworthy of the liberality of the Allegedly, Matthew confronted Bides and prohibited him from working the
reinstatement, in consonance to Article 99, 100 of P.D. No. 442, as amended. law. following day as he would be terminated from the ACMC. Thus, Bides filed
Thus, this Court finds and agrees with the computation by the NLRC of The fact that [the employer] did not suffer pecuniary damage will a complaint for illegal dismissal against ACMC.
[Ampeloquio's] wage rate. While he [ Ampeloquio] may have been ordered
not obliterate respondent's betrayal of trust and confidence
reinstated to his former position without loss of seniority rights and benefits, this
Court cannot agree [with] the strained interpretation given by [Ampeloquio] that reposed by petitioner. Neither would his length of service justify The LA ruled that Bides was illegally dismissed. The NLRC reversed the
since he is the most senior among his co-employees, he should be entitled to the his dishonesty or mitigate his liability. His length of service LA’s decision. The CA affirmed with modification the NLRC’s decision. The
same amount of wages and benefits as that being received by them. x x x Thus, even aggravates his offense. He should have been more CA ruled that there was no illegal dismissal but ordered ACMC to pay Bides
when he was reinstated on August 6, 2004, the salary scale that governs shall be loyal to petitioner company from which he derived his separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, taking into account the strained
the minimum wage rate then prevailing or his actual daily wage rate, which ever family bread and butter for seventeen years. relations between the parties.
is higher.19
While we sympathize with Capor's plight, being of ISSUE: Whether strained relations exist between ACMC and Bides to bar
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in retirement age and having served petitioners for 39 years, the latter’s reinstatement and justify the award of separation pay?
CA-G.R. SP No. 104445 and the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC
we cannot award any financial assistance in her favor
LAC No. 08-002252-07 are AFFIRMED. No costs.
because it is not only against the law but also a HELD: The Court finds no merit in the petition.
retrogressive public policy.We have already explained the folly
23. SEPARATION PAY TO LEGALLY of granting financial assistance in the guise of compassion in the LABOR LAW: doctrine of strained relations
following pronouncements: Certainly, a dishonest employee
TERMINATED EMPLOYEE
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
cannot be rewarded with separation pay or any financial benefit The Court is well aware that reinstatement is the rule and, for the
after his culpability is established in two decisions by competent exception of “strained relations” to apply, it should be proved that it is
labor tribunals, which decisions appear to be well- supported by likely that, if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism would
Supra Multi-Services, Inc., Jesus Tambunting, Jr., And evidence. To hold otherwise, even in the name of compassion, be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the
Rita Claire T. Dabu vs. Lanie M. Labatigan, G.R. No. would be to send a wrong signal not only that "crime pays" but employee concerned.
192297, August 3, 2016). also that one can enrich himself at the expense of another in the
name of social justice. And courts as well as quasi-judicial entities Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay is
will be overrun by "* petitioners mouthing dubious pleas for considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter
When the employee commits an act of dishonesty,
misplaced social justice. Indeed, before there can be an occasion option is no longer desirable or viable. On one hand, such payment
depravity, or iniquity, the grant of financial assistance is
for compassion and mercy, there must first be justice for all. liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work
misplaced compassion. It is tantamount not only to
Otherwise, employees will be encouraged to steal and environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly
condoning a patently illegal or dishonest act, but an
misappropriate in the expectation that eventually, in the name of unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no
endorsement thereof. It will be an insult to all the laborers
social justice and compassion, they will not be penalized but longer trust. Moreover, the doctrine of strained relations has been made
who, despite their economic difficulties, strive to maintain
instead financially rewarded. Verily, a contrary holding will merely applicable to cases where the employee decides not to be reinstated and
good values and moral conduct.
encourage lawlessness, dishonesty, and duplicity. These are not demands for separation pay.
In fact, in the recent case of Toyota Motors Philippines, Corp. the values that society cherishes; these are the habits that it
Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. National Labor Relations abhors. (Emphases supplied, citations omitted.) In the present case, Bides has consistently maintained, from the
Commission, we ruled that separation pay shall not be granted to proceedings in the LA up to the CA, his refusal to be reinstated due to his
all employees who are dismissed on any of the four grounds fear of reprisal which he could experience as a consequence of his return.
provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code. Such ruling was 24. STRAINED RELATIONSHIP By doing so, Bides unequivocally foreclosed reinstatement as a relief.
reiterated and further explained in Central Philippines Bandag
Retreaders, Inc. v. Diasnes: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary