Reinstatement explained - G.R. No. 168317

G.R. No. 168317

"x x x.

Under the existing law, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights.24 Article 27925 of the Labor Code clearly provides that an employee who is dismissed without just cause and without due process is entitled to backwages and reinstatement or payment of separation pay in lieu thereof.26 Article 223 of the same Code also provides that an employee entitled to reinstatement shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation, or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. It is established in jurisprudence that reinstatement means restoration to a state or condition from which one had been removed or separated.27 The person reinstated assumes the position he had occupied prior to his dismissal.28 Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from which one had been removed still exists, or that there is an unfilled position which is substantially equivalent or of similar nature as the one previously occupied by the employee.29 Based on the foregoing principles, it cannot be said that petitioners intended to reinstate private respondent neither to his former position under the same terms and conditions nor to a substantially equivalent position. To begin with, the notice that petitioners sent to private respondent requiring the latter to report back for work is silent with regard to the position or exact nature they wanted the private respondent to assume. Indeed, as it turned out, petitioners had other plans for private respondent. Thus, private respondent's assignment to a different job, as well as transfer of work assignment without any justification therefor, cannot be deemed as faithful compliance with the reinstatement order.

As earlier discussed, private respondent may not be faulted for rejecting what petitioners claim as compliance with the order to reinstate the former given the totally different nature of the job he was afterwards given and the conditions and working environment under which he was to perform such job. Thus, private respondent found it unacceptable to work for petitioners. That he was placed in an untenable situation which practically left him with no choice but to leave his assigned task also shows the strained relations that has developed between the parties.

This Court has ruled in many instances that reinstatement is no longer viable where, among others, the relations between the employer and the employee have been so severely strained, that it is not in the best interest of the parties, nor is it advisable or practical to order reinstatement, or where the employee decides not to be reinstated.30 In the instant case, the resulting circumstances show that reinstatement would be impractical and would hardly promote the best interest of the parties. Resentment and enmity between petitioners and private respondent necessarily strained the relationship between them or even provoked antipathy and antagonism as shown by the acts of the parties subsequent to the order of reinstatement. Besides, private respondent expressly prayed for an award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement from the very start of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. By so doing, he forecloses reinstatement as a relief by implication.

Where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service should be awarded as an alternative. This has been the consistent ruling in the award of separation pay to illegally dismissed employees in lieu of reinstatement.31

x x x."