Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC
Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC
Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corporation vs. NLRC
The intent of the legislature to be ascertained and thereafter given effect is the intent expressed
in the language of the statute
November 8,1984, she was considered dismissed "in view of (her) inability
to refute and disprove these findings.
On July 1985- the Labor Arbiter ordered GMCR to reinstate private
respondent to her former or equivalent position and to pay her full
backwages and other benefits she would have received were it not for the
illegal dismissal. Petitioner was also ordered to pay private respondent
moral damages of P50,000.00. NLRC affirmed the resolution but
modified the judgment and limited the backwages to a period of two
(2) years and deleted the award for moral damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Salazar can be reinstated to her former position and entitled to
backwages.
HELD:
YES. There being no evidence to show an authorized, much less a legal, cause for
the dismissal of private respondent, she had every right, not only to be entitled to
reinstatement, but as well, to full backwages. The wording of Article 279 of Labor Code
is clear and unambiguous: "An employee who is 'unjustly dismissed from work shall be
entitled to reinstatement . . . and to his full backwages . . . " Under the principles of
statutory construction, if a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be
given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. This plainmeaning rule or verba legis derived from the maxim index animi sermo est
(speech is the index of intention) rests on the valid presumption that the words
employed by the legislature in a statute correctly express its intent or will and preclude
the court from construing it differently.
**ADDITIONAL NOTES (YOU MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE THIS IN YOUR
DIGEST):
Read further on the Courts explanation on verba legis non est recedendum
On TRUST AND CONFIDENCE element on STRAINED RELATIONS:
In such cases, it should be proved that the employee
concerned occupies a position where he enjoys the trust and
confidence of his employer; and that it is likely that if reinstated, an
atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely
affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned.
Obviously, the principle of "strained relations" cannot be
applied indiscriminately. Otherwise, reinstatement can never be possible
simply because some hostility is invariably engendered between the
parties as a result of litigation. That is human nature. Besides, no strained
relations should arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one's right;
otherwise an employee who shall assert his right could be easily separated
from the service, by merely paying his separation pay on the pretext that
his relationship with his employer had already become strained. Here, it
has not been proved that the position of private respondent as systems
analyst is one that may be characterized as a position of trust and
con6dence such that if reinstated, it may well lead to strained relations
between employer and employee. Hence, this does not constitute an
exception to the general rule mandating reinstatement for an employee
who has been unlawfully dismissed.
Also read on how the Court explained CONFLICT INTEREST issue on
Salazar. (THIS WILL ANSWER IS SALAZAR COMMITTED AN ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE)