Almirante: Strained relations

RESPONDENT Victoriano G. Veneracion, a sales consultant, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment of salaries against petitioner Advan Motor Inc.

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter (LA) declaring respondent’s dismissal illegal. It ordered that respondent be paid his separation pay in lieu of reinstatement on account of strained relations between the parties.

The Court of Appeals (CA) modified the decision of the NLRC by ordering the reinstatement of respondent and the payment of backwages.

Is the CA modification of the decision justified?

Ruling: Yes.

The Court of Appeals pointed as significant that “strained relationship” is a question of fact. In his pleadings, respondent continually reiterated his plea to be reinstated. Petitioner did not allege in its position paper that it could no longer employ respondent because of “strained relationship.” The factual issue of “strained relationship” was not an issue, hence, was not subject of proof before the Labor Arbiter.

The Court of Appeals correctly held that every labor dispute almost always results in “strained relations,” and the phrase cannot be given an overarching interpretation, otherwise, an unjustly dismissed employee can never be reinstated.

As to the finding of the NLRC that the respondent had convinced it that the relations between him and management had become so strained by describing in detail that he was repeatedly being offered a financial package in exchange for his resignation and his being treated unfairly, the Court of Appeals found it absurd that the NLRC would utilize petitioner’s own statements to prop up the existence of “strained relationship” when in fact it was respondent who had been pleading and praying that he be reinstated. On the contrary, this showed that despite the perceived animosity between the parties, respondent was still willing to get back to work.

As to the finding that management had declared that it had lost its trust and confidence on complainant who, as a sales consultant, was a front line employee in whom respondents had complete trust, we agree with the Court of Appeals that a sales consultant is not a position of complete trust and confidence where personal ill will could foreclose an employee’s reinstatement.

Moreover, as it is one of the just causes for dismissal under the Labor Code, to affirm the allegation of loss of trust and confidence would lead to an illogical conclusion that respondent was validly dismissed from service. As we have held, “strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact. The doctrine of strained relations should not be used recklessly or applied loosely nor be based on impression alone” so as to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his means of livelihood and deny him reinstatement.

Since the application of this doctrine will result in the deprivation of employment despite the absence of just cause, the implementation of the doctrine of strained relationship must be supplemented by the rule that the existence of a strained relationship is for the employer to clearly establish and prove in the manner it is called upon to prove the existence of a just cause; the degree of hostility attendant to a litigation is not, by itself, sufficient proof of the existence of strained relations that would rule out the possibility of reinstatement. (Advan Motor, Inc. vs. Victoriano G. Veneracion, G.R. No. 190944, December 13, 2017).

Trending

No stories found.

Just in

No stories found.

Branded Content

No stories found.
SunStar Publishing Inc.
www.sunstar.com.ph