Dear PAO,

My son works as a porter for a consignee in a certain fish port in our province. Before the end of his shift, he was advised to no longer return to work the next day because his service was no longer needed. The following day, he woke up and read a text message from the owner’s representative saying that his services were no longer needed and that he should no longer report to work. Aggrieved, my son filed a labor case for illegal dismissal with a prayer for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. We no longer presented any other evidence to prove strained relations and relied on the fact that he was unjustly dismissed from employment. Does the fact of an abrupt dismissal prove strained relations?

Meg

Dear Meg,

Please be informed of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Noel Guinto v. Sto. Niño Long-Zeny Consignee, Angelo Salangsang, and Zenaida Salangsang (GR 250987, March 29, 2022, Ponente: Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting), where it was provided that:

“As a general rule, an employee who has been illegally dismissed is entitled to reinstatement. An exception to this rule is the doctrine of strained relations. The Court, in Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc, explained the doctrine of strained relations, the reason behind it, and the limitations of its appreciation in each and every case, viz.

“Under the doctrine of strained relations, such payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable. On the one hand[,] it liberates the employee from what could be a highly oppressive work environment. On the other hand, it releases the employer from the grossly unpalatable obligation of maintaining in its employ a worker it could no longer trust. x x x

“Besides, the doctrine of strained relations cannot be applied indiscriminately since every labor dispute almost invariably results in ‘strained relations;’ otherwise, reinstatement can never be possible simply because some hostility is engendered between the parties as a result of their disagreement. That is human nature. Strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact. The doctrine should not be used recklessly or loosely applied, nor be based on impression alone.

“Here, petitioner should have proven the existence of strained relations between him and respondents before the lower tribunals. However, he failed to do so. As such, the Court is constrained to deny petitioner’s prayer for the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as his illegal dismissal alone does not justify a finding of strained relations.” (Emphasis ours)

As stated in the above case, an illegal dismissal would generally result in an order of reinstatement, as what is protected by the law is the property right to work, which cannot be taken away without due process of law. The exception to this is the award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement when strained relations exist.

According to the Supreme Court, the assertion that strained relations exist is a factual allegation that must be proven distinctly from the fact of illegal dismissal. The application of the doctrine must be judiciously applied, as almost every labor dispute results in “strained relations.” Thus, the factual assertions building up the “strained relations” must be proven.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net