PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC., VS. ANECITO MOLON, AUGUSTO TECSON, JONATHAN VILLONES, BIENVENIDO LAGARTOS, JAIME CADION

Ruling

Accordingly, it cannot be said that the signing of the September 1999 quitclaims was tantamount to a full and final settlement between Pepsi and respondents. E. Dismissal of Remandaban An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is no longer viable, and backwages. [78] In certain cases, however, the Court has ordered the reinstatement of the employee without backwages considering the fact that (1) the dismissal of the employee would be too harsh a penalty; and (2) the employer was in good faith in terminating the employee. For instance, in the case of Cruz v. Minister of Labor and Employment [79] the Court ruled as follows: The Court is convinced that petitioner's guilt was substantially established. Nevertheless, we agree with respondent Minister's order of reinstating petitioner without backwages instead of dismissal which may be too drastic . Denial of backwages would sufficiently penalize her for her infractions . The bank officials acted in good faith. They should be exempt from the burden of paying backwages. The good faith of the employer , when clear under the circumstances, may preclude or diminish recovery of backwages. Only employees discriminately dismissed are entitled to backpay. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Likewise, in the case of Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission , [80] the Court pronounced that [t]he ends of social and compassionate justice would therefore be served if private respondent is reinstated but without backwages in view of petitioner's good faith. The factual similarity of these cases to Remandabans situation deems it appropriate to render the same disposition. As may be gathered from the September 11, 2002 NLRC Decision, while Remandaban was remiss in properly informing Pepsi of his intended absence, the NLRC ruled that the penalty of dismissal would have been too harsh for his infractions considering that his failure to report to work was clearly prompted by a medical emergency and not by any intention to defy the July 27, 1999 return-to-work order. [81] On the other hand, Pepsis good faith is supported by the NLRCs finding that the return-to-work-order of the Secretary was taken lightly by Remandaban. [82] In this regard, considering Remandabans ostensible dereliction of the said order, Pepsi could not be blamed for sending him a notice of termination and eventually proceeding to dismiss him. At any rate, it must be noted that while Pepsi impleaded Remandaban as party to the case, it failed to challenge the NLRC ruling ordering his reinstatement to his former position without backwages. As such, the foregoing issue is now settled with finality. All told, the NLRCs directive to reinstate Remandaban without backwages is upheld. WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The assailed March 31, 2006 Decision and September 18, 2006 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 82354 are hereby