Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The assailed Decision and Resolution of the NLRC are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that private respondent is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement and backwages to be computed from the time of his illegal dismissal until the finality of this Decision. SO ORDERED . [11] The petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [12] was denied by the CA in its Resolution [13] dated July 7, 2009.
WHEREFORE , the petition is DENIED . The assailed Decision and Resolution of the NLRC are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that private respondent is entitled to separation pay equivalent to one month salary for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement and backwages to be computed from the time of his illegal dismissal until the finality of this Decision. SO ORDERED . [11] The petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration [12] was denied by the CA in its Resolution [13] dated July 7, 2009. Undaunted, the petitioner instituted the instant petition for review on certiorari before this Court asserting the following arguments: (1) the CA erred in awarding separation pay in favor of the respondent in lieu of reinstatement considering that the appeal before it only involved the issue of the legality or illegality of the respondent's dismissal; (2) an award of separation pay to the respondent is not proper in this case considering that, in his complaint, he merely prayed for reinstatement and not payment of separation pay; and (3) the CA erred in awarding backwages in favor of the respondent since it acted in good faith when it terminated the respondent's employment. In his Comment, [14] the respondent asserted that the CA did not err in ordering the payment of separation pay in his favor in lieu of reinstatement since there is already a strained relationship between him and the petitioner. He intimated that the petitioner had previously filed various criminal charges against him for qualified theft thus effectively rendering his reinstatement to his former position in the Bank of Lubao impracticable. Issues In sum, the issues to be resolved by this Court in the instant case are the following: (1) whether the CA erred in ordering the petitioner to pay the respondent separation pay in lieu of reinstatement; and (2) whether the respondent is entitled to payment of backwages. The Court's Ruling This Court notes that the LA, the NLRC and the CA unanimously ruled that the respondent was illegally dismissed. Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court, more so when they coincide with those of the LA. Such factual findings are given more weight when the same are affirmed by the CA. We find no reason to depart from the foregoing rule. First Issue: Separation Pay in Lieu of Reinstatement At the outset, it should be stressed that a determination of the applicability of the doctrine of strained relations is essentially a factual question and, thus, not a proper subject in the instant petition. [15] The well-entrenched rule in our jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be entertained by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari . This rule, however, is not ironclad and admits certain exceptions, such as when, inter alia , the findings of fact are conflicting. [16] Here, in view of the conflicting findings of the NLRC and the CA, this Court is constr