a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer
Sadac was appointed VP of the legal department of the bank on Aug 1, 1981 and General Counsel on Dec 8 1981. On 26 June 1989, nine lawyers of petitioner Bank's Legal Department, in a letter-petition to the Chairman of the Board of Directors, accused respondent Sadac of abusive conduct, inter alia, and ultimately, petitioned for a change in leadership of the department. On the ground of lack of confidence in respondent Sadac, under the rules of client and lawyer relationship, petitioner Bank instructed respondent Sadac to deliver all materials in his custody in all cases in which the latter was appearing as its counsel of record. In reaction thereto, respondent Sadac requested for a full hearing and formal investigation but the same remained unheeded. On 9 November 1989, respondent Sadac filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with damages against petitioner Bank and individual members of the Board of Directors thereof. After learning of the filing of the complaint, vetitioner Bank terminated the services of respondent Sadac. Finally, on 10 August 1989, respondent Sadac was removed from his office and ordered disentitled to any compensation and other benefits.
During the said case, it was already declared that the termination done was illegal thus now there is a challenge based upon the computation of the monetary award of backwages to be given to Sadac. Sadac states that Art 279 of the labor code holds that general increases of wage during the said period should be included.
Bank however challenges such in that the wage rate that must be used is the wage rate at the time of dismissal only and that general increases therefore are not automatically applied.
1.) Whether or not the computation of backwages include the salary increases. No.
2.) Whether or not CA erred in ruling that Sadac is entitled to checkup benefit clothing allowance and cash conversion of vacation leaves provided that there was no evidence given. Yes.
No, the computation is based on the wage rate at the time of the dismissal.
2. Mere allegations by respondent Sadac does not suffice in the absence of proof supporting the same. Contained nowhere is an acknowledgment of herein claimed benefits, namely, check-up benefit, clothing allowance, and cash conversion of vacation leaves. Absent such acknowledgement, there can be no benefit.
Leave a Reply.