After reading “What Is The Doctrine Of Strained Relations?”, read also “Are Part-Time Workers in the Private Sector Entitled to Retirement Benefits?”
-
Where the relationship of the employer with the employee is so strained and ruptured as to preclude a harmonious working relationship, the employee should be afforded the right to a separation pay.
-
The payment of separation pay is considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is no longer desirable or viable.
-
The doctrine of strained relations should not be used recklessly or applied loosely nor be based on impression alone.
The law says:
Art. 294. Security of Tenure. – In case of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and other privileges and to his full back wages, inclusive of allowance and his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
Art. 294 of the Labor Code expressly mandates reinstatement, but not the alternative remedy of separation pay in lieu thereof. However, the Supreme Court has been clear in enunciating the award of separation pay in instances when reinstatement is not feasible.
It is undisputedly a recourse based on equity that has been authorized by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases.
What is the Doctrine of Strained Relations?
The Doctrine of Strained Relations states that under the circumstances where the relationship of the employer with the employee is so strained and ruptured as to preclude a harmonious working relationship should reinstatement of the employee be decreed, the latter should be afforded the right to separation pay so that he can be spared the agony of having to work anew with the employer under an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism and the employer does not have to endure the continued services of the employee in whom it has lost confidence. (Esmalin v. NLRC, G.R. No. 67880, 15 September 1989)
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. On one hand, such payment 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.
Nonetheless, the doctrine of strained relations should not be used recklessly or applied loosely nor be based on impression alone (Symex Security Services, Inc. v. Rivera Jr., G.R. No. 202613, 08 November 2017). It 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.
The Supreme Court has ruled in the case of Advan Motor, Inc. v. Veneracion (G.R. No. 190944, December 13, 2017) that strained relations must be demonstrated as a fact. It must be adequately supported by substantial evidence showing that the relationship between the employer and the employee is indeed strained as a necessary consequence of the judicial controversy. To wit:
“As we have held, “[s]trained relations must be demonstrated as a fact. The doctrine of strained relations should not be used recklessly or applied loosely nor be based on impression alone” so as to deprive an illegally dismissed employee of his means of livelihood and deny him reinstatement. Since the application of this doctrine will result in the deprivation of employment despite the absence of just cause, the implementation of the doctrine of strained relationship must be supplemented by the rule that the existence of a strained relationship is for the employer to clearly establish and prove in the manner it is called upon to prove the existence of a just cause; the degree of hostility attendant to a litigation is not, by itself, sufficient proof of the existence of strained relations that would rule out the possibility of reinstatement.”
What are the requisites for the Doctrine of Strained Relations to apply?
In the case of Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 82511, 03 March 1992), the Supreme Court has taken the occasion to provide the requisites in applying the Doctrine of Strained Relations, as follows:
- The employee concerned occupies a position where he enjoys the trust and confidence of his employer; and
- If reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.
In the case of Leopard Security and Investigation Agency v. Quitoy (G.R. No. 186344, 20 February 2013) the Supreme Court ruled that even in cases of illegal dismissal, the Doctrine of Strained Relations is not applied indiscriminately as to bar reinstatement, especially when the employee has not indicated an aversion to returning to work or does not occupy a position of trust and confidence or has no say in the operation of the employer’s business.
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding illegal dismissal, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]