LABOR LAW Isnihayah Pangandaman

LINO A. FERNANDEZ, JR., v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO)

G.R. No. 226002, 25 June 2018, SECOND DIVISION (Peralta, J.)

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE

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.

FACTS

Petitioner Fernandez was an employee of respondent Manila Electric Company

(MERALCO) until his termination for allegedly participating in an illegal strike. Petitioner
filed a case for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC declared that Fernandez
was illegally dismissed. The CA sustained the motion. The judgement became final and
executory.

During the execution proceedings, both parties filed several motions regarding the
reinstatement of the petitioner. The labor arbiter ruled that petitioner cannot be reinstated.
Instead, the petitioner was given a separation pay. Petitioner elevated the case to the CA
but it was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not petitioner should be reinstated.

HELD

YES. The Court ruled that the petitioner is subject to reinstatement. An illegally
dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement as a matter of right. The award for
separation of pay is a mere exception to the rule. It is an alternative upon: (a) when
reinstatement cannot be effected in view of the passage of a long period of time; (b)
reinstatement is inimical to the employer’s interest; (c) reinstatement is no longer feasible;
(d) reinstatement does not serve the best interests of parties involved; (e) the employer
is prejudiced by the worker’s continued employment; (f) facts that make execution unjust
or inequitable have supervened; (g) strained relations between the employer and
employee.

The doctrine of strained relation cannot be applied indiscriminately since every

labor dispute almost invariably results in “strained relation;” otherwise, reinstatement can
never be possible simply because some hostility is endangered between the parties as a
result of their disagreement. It must be adequately supported by substantial evidence
showing that the relationship of employer and employee is indeed strained resulting as
necessary consequence of judicial controversy. The doctrine of strained relation can only
be invoked only against employees whose position demand trust and confidence, or
whose differences with their employer are of such degree that preclude reinstatement.

The Court further ruled that reinstatement cannot be barred especially when the
employee has indicated the aversion to return to work, or does not occupy a position of
trust and confidence, or has no say in the operation of the employer. The petitioner
showed his intent and willingness to be reinstated. The confidential relation between the
petitioner and respondent was also not established. The petitioner was a Leadman which
does not require trust and confidence.