This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-01-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, an employee who has been dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under Article 282[22] of the Labor Code is not entitled to a separation pay.[23] Section 7, Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code provides: Sec. 7. Termination of employment by employer. &mdash The just causes for terminating the services of an employee shall be those provided in Article 282 of the Code. The separation from work of an employee for a just cause does not entitle him to the termination pay provided in the Code, without prejudice, however, to whatever rights, benefits and privileges he may have under the applicable individual or collective agreement with the employer or voluntary employer policy or practice. | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded by Capor's argument that despite the finding of theft, she should still be granted separation pay in light of her long years of service with petitioners. We held in Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission[28] that: Although long years of service might generally be considered for the award of separation benefits or some form of financial assistance to mitigate the effects of termination, this case is not the appropriate instance for generosity x x x. The fact that private respondent served petitioner for more than twenty years with no negative record prior to his dismissal, in our view of this case, does not call for such award of benefits, since his violation reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty and worse, betrayal of the company. If an employee's length of service is to be regarded as justification for moderating the penalty of dismissal, such gesture will actually become a prize for disloyalty, distorting the meaning of social justice and undermining the efforts of labor to clean its ranks of undesirables. | |||||