award under other statutes is greater than the amount of the severance pay mandated under Law 80. This contention is based on a footnote in Loubrido v. Hull Dobbs Co. of Puerto Rico, Inc., 526 F.Supp. 1055, 1061, n. 9 (D.P.R.1981), which reads: “[I]t should be noted that severance pay received by plaintiff on account of his termination equaled his basic salary for the month of December 1975. For this reason, back wages have been computed since January 1976 and the exclusion of severance pay was automatically made.” The wrongful discharge statute states quite clearly that it is remedial. The very title conveys this fact: “Indemnity for Discharge Without Just Cause”. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has also confirmed this fact. Beauchamp v. Holsum Bakers of P.R., 116 D.P.R. 522 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Because the wrongful termination statute is
holding that the defendant is in the best position to prove and should bear the burden of establishing its entitlement to an exemption under 29 usc  1108 from 29 usc  1106b erisas prohibited transactions provision holding that the authorization under 29 usc  1132a3 extends to a suit against a nonfiduciary party in interest to a transaction barred by 29 usc  1106a holding that the finding that entities constitute a single enterprise under 29 usc  203r is separate and distinct from whether an entity is an employer under 29 usc  203d holding that section 185a of title 29 is remedial in nature holding under 29 usc  216c