Strained relations
Respondent Josephine P. Katando filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against petitioner Papertech Inc. The Labor Arbiter (LA) found her illegally dismissed. She was awarded backwages, other benefits, separation pay and attorney’s fees. However, her claim for reinstatement was denied on the grounds that the filing of the complaint and the attempts of Papertech to transfer her have resulted in a strained relationship.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) sustained the findings of the LA, citing several cases involving Papertech and Katando which created an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism. The Court of Appeals (CA) ruled that the doctrine of strained relations cannot apply to Katando as she is part of the rank and file workforce and does not occupy a managerial or key position in the company. She even asked for her reinstatement.
Did the CA commit a reversible error? Ruling: Yes.
After Balaquezon Employees & Workers Transportation Union v. Zamora, 186 Phil. 3, 9 (1980), the Court further expounded on the doctrine of strained relations in the case of Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 283 Phil. 649, 664 (1992), wherein we discussed the following considerations in applying the doctrine of strained relations: (1) the employee must occupy a position where he or she enjoys the trust and confidence of his or her employer; (2) it is likely if reinstated, an atmosphere of antipathy and antagonism may be generated as to adversely affect the efficiency and productivity of the employee concerned; (3) it cannot be applied indiscriminately because some hostility is invariably engendered between the parties as a result of litigation; and (4) it cannot arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one’s right. After Globe-Mackay, we clarified that the doctrine cannot apply when the employee has not indicated an aversion to returning to work, or does not occupy a position of trust and confidence in, or has no say in the operation of, the employer’s business. In addition, strained relations between the parties must be proven as a fact.
Although Katando does not occupy a position of trust and confidence as a machine operator, the circumstances of this case nonetheless calls for the application of the doctrine of strained relations. It is true that litigation between the parties per se should not bar the reinstatement of an employee. However, as observed by the NLRC, this is not the only case involving Papertech and Katando. They have been in conflict since 2008, or for 11 years now. In the case of Digital Telecommunications Philippines Inc. v. Digitel Employees Union, 697 Phil. 132, 157 (2012), we held that the length of time from the occurrence of the incident to its resolution and the demonstrated litigiousness of the parties showed that their relationship is strained. Similarly, the protracted litigation between the parties here sufficiently demonstrate that their relationship is strained. It is notable that Papertech has not even bothered to appeal the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, and even stated that “in order not to prolong the proceedings, and for both parties to peacefully move on from this unwanted situation, Papertech is willing to pay the judgment award of separation pay.” Clearly, Papertech does not want Katando back as its employee.
Moreover, the CA stated in its final and executory Nov. 9, 2015 Decision in CA-G.R. SP 135557, wherein Katando was one of the respondents together with Papertech’s other employees, that what remained in Papertech’s Pasig City premises was its sales, marketing and distribution operations. In that case, the CA held that the transfer of Papertech’s manufacturing and production departments to its provincial plants was valid. Consequently, the positions held by Katando and her co-respondents in Pasig City were abolished. Bearing this in mind, Katando’s reinstatement as a machine operator in Papertech’s Pasig City premises is no longer possible. Thus, separation pay is the only viable option for Katando. (Papertech Inc. vs. Josephine P. Katando, G.R. 236020, Jan. 8, 2020).