Doctrine: Reinstatement without backwages is the remedy if the employees were not illegally dismissed but also did

not abandon their jobs. Where reinstatement was already impossible by reason of the strained relations of the
parties, and the fact that the employees already found another employment, each party must bear his or her own
loss, thus, placing them on equal footing.

Froel M. Pu-Od, et.al v. Ablaze Builders, Inc.

G.R. No. 230791, November 20, 2017

Facts:

Ablaze Builders, Inc., is engaged in the construction business. It has been its practice to hire construction workers,
foreman, and other personnel on per project basis. Ablaze hired Pu-od et al, on different dates, positions and daily
salaries.

On sometime in June 2013, Ablaze hired Pu-od to work in its project located at Roces Avenue, Quezon City,
specifically for the finishing phase. Thereafter, a project engineer of Ablaze allegedly told Pu-od, that they are
already terminated from their employment because there was no more work to be done, even if in reality, the
phase on which they were working on was not yet completed.

Aggrieved by the verbal dismissal, Pu-od et al, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Ablaze before Labor
Arbiter. Pu-od admitted that they no longer chose to be reinstated due to the strained relationship of the parties.

Pu-od averred, among others, that Ablaze, unceremoniously terminated their employment without giving them an
opportunity to explain their side. They maintained that they are entitled to their money claims

Respondents, on the other hand, alleged that the company did not terminate petitioners' employment, but rather,
this is a case of abandonment of work on the part of the petitioners. Likewise claimed that sometime in February
2014, after the resignation of its project site engineer, Engr. Romeo Calma (Engr. Calma), the petitioners stopped
appearing for work, which caused delay in the turnover of the project to respondents' client.

LA – rendered decision against Pu-Od, thereby dismissing their complaint. LA ruled that there was no dismissal,
actual or constructive, committed by Ablaze, since Pu-Od have failed to substantiate their allegation of the fact of
dismissal.

NLRC – issued resolution in favor of Pu-Od. It was held that Ablaze liable to pay the petitioners their backwages
and separation pay.

CA – rendered a decision, granting the petition of Ablaze and reversing NLRC’s decision.

Issue:

1. W/N backwages should be paid to employees who did not abandon his job but was not also dismissed
from service.
2. W/N the employee who opted not to be reinstated is entitled to separation pay;
3. W/N parties must be their own loss in cases where there is no dismissal and no abandonment of work.

Held:

Deletion of Award of BAckwages and Separation Pay

In cases where there is both an absence of illegal dismissal on the part of the employer and an absence of
abandonment on the part of the employees, the remedy is reinstatement but without backwages. However,
considering that the reinstatement was already impossible by reason of the strained relations of the parties, and the
fact that petitioners already found another employment, each party must bear his or her own loss, thus, placing
them on equal footing.

The Court take into consideration all circumstances, thus, The lack of evidence of dismissal and the lack of intent
on the part of the Pu-Od to abandon his work, the remedy is reinstatement but without backwages. However,
considering that reinstatement is no longer applicable due to the strained relationship between the parties and
that employees already found another employment, each party must bear his or her own loss, thus, placing
them on equal footing.

In sum, considering that Pu-od’s cessation of employment was neither brought about by abandonment nor illegal
dismissal, and their reinstatement is no longer feasible due to strained relations and because they did not opt to
be reinstated, coupled with the fact that they already found employment elsewhere, the legal effect is that the
burden of economic loss is not rightfully shifted to the employer; the parties must bear the burden of their own
loss.