G.R. No.

211228 November 12, 2014

UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN, INC., CESAR DUQUE/JUAN LLAMAS AMOR/DOMINADOR REYES,Petitioners,

vs.
FLORENTINO FERNANDEZ and HEIRS OF NILDA FERNANDEZ

In Gonzales, the Court stated that when there is a finding of illegal dismissal and an award of backwages and separation
pay, "[t]he decision also becomes a judgment for money from which another consequence flowsthe payment of interest in
case of delay."38

Again in Gonzales, the Court instructed that legal interest is imposable upon the "total unpaid judgment amount, from the
time x x x the decision (on the merits in the original case) became final." 39

In the case at bar, the CA properly imposed the legal interest upon the total monetary award even if none was explicitly
included in the fine print of LA Gambitos decision and LA Flores order. The imposition of legal interest is not to be
considered as an alteration of the final judgment to be executed. The legal interest is already deemed read into the decision.

In Gonzales, the Court stated that when there is a finding of illegal dismissal and an award of backwages and separation
pay, "[t]he decision also becomes a judgment for money from which another consequence flowsthe payment of interest in
case of delay."38

Again in Gonzales, the Court instructed that legal interest is imposable upon the "total unpaid judgment amount, from the
time x x x the decision (on the merits in the original case) became final." 39

In the case at bar, the CA properly imposed the legal interest upon the total monetary award even if none was explicitly
included in the fine print of LA Gambitos decision and LA Flores order. The imposition of legal interest is not to be
considered as an alteration of the final judgment to be executed. The legal interest is already deemed read into the decision.

From date of the Entry of Judgment 6% per annum from July 1, 2013 until their full satisfaction.

G.R. No. 206942 February 25, 2015

VICENTE C. TATEL, Petitioner,

vs.
JLFP INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY, INC., JOSE LUIS F. PAMINTUAN, and/or PAOLO C. TURNO,Respondents.

The twin reliefs that should be given to an illegally dismissed employee are full backwages and reinstatement. Backwages
1

restore the lost income of an employee and is computed from the time compensation was withheld up to actual
reinstatement. Anent reinstatement, only when it is not viable is separation pay given.
2

At the core of this petition is Tatel' s insistence that he was illegally dismissed when, after he was put on "floating status" on
October 24, 2009, respondents no longer gave him assignments or postings, and the period therefor had lasted for more
than six ( 6) months. On the other hand, respondents maintained that Tatel abandoned his work, and that his inconsistent
statements before the labor tribunals regarding his work details rendered his claim of illegal dismissal suspect.

After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court is convinced that Tatel was constructively, not actually, dismissed after
having been placed on "floating status" for more than six ( 6) months, reckoned from October 24, 2009, the day following his
removal from his last assignment with IPVG on October 23, 2009
Relative thereto, constructive dismissal exists when an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain, on the part of the
employer has become so unbearable as to leave an employee with no choice but to forego continued employment, or when 64

there is cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, as an offer
involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 14, 2012 and the Resolution dated April 22, 2013
rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 119997 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated
February 9, 2011 and the Resolution dated March 31, 2011 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) are
REINSTATED with MODIFICATION reckoning the computation of back wages from the date of petitioner's constructive
dismissal on October 24, 2009 until finality hereof, computed at 12,400.00 per month. The rest of the NLRC Decision
stands.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 199554 February 18, 2015

ZENAIDA PAZ, Petitioner,

vs.
NORTHERN TOBACCO REDRYING CO., INC., AND/OR ANGELO ANG

This court in Philippine Tobacco explained its computation of separation pay as follows:

The amount of separation pay is based on two factors: the amount of monthly salary and the number of years of service.
Although the Labor Code provides different definitions as to what constitutes "one year of service," Book Six does not
specifically define "one year of service" for purposes of computing separation pay. However, Articles 283 and 284 both state
in connection with separation pay that a fraction of at least six months shall be considered one whole year. Applying this to
the case at bar, we hold that the amount of separation pay which respondent members of the Lubat and Luris groups should
receive is one-half (1/2) their respective average monthly pay during the last season they worked multiplied by the number
of years they actually rendered service, provided that they worked for at least six months during a given year.