This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-09-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The distinction between just and authorized causes for dismissal lies in the fact that payment of separation pay is required in dismissals for an authorized cause but not so in dismissals for just cause. The rationale behind this rule was explained in the case of Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC[23] and reiterated in San Miguel Corporation v. Lao,[24] thus: We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice. | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Exceptionally, separation pay is granted to a legally dismissed employee as an act "social justice,"[101] or based on "equity."[102] In both instances, it is required that the dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct; and (2) does not reflect on the moral character of the employee.[103] | |||||
|
2008-07-14 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Gabuay v. Oversea Paper Supply[7] defines separation pay as the amount that an employee receives at the time of his severance and is designed to provide the employee with the wherewithal during the period he is looking for another employment. In San Miguel Corporation v. Lao,[8] the Court held that the award of separation pay is authorized in the situations dealt with in Article 283 and Art. 284 of the Labor Code, but not in terminations of employment based on instances enumerated in Art. 282.[9] In Eastern Paper Mills, Inc. v. NLRC, this Court held that:The only cases when separation pay shall be paid, although the employee was lawfully dismissed, are when the cause of termination was not attributable to the employee's fault but due to: (1) the installation of labor saving devices, (2) redundancy, (3) retrenchment, (4) cessation of employer's business, or (5) when the employee is suffering from a disease and his continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health and to the health of his co-employees (Articles 283 and 284, Labor Code.) Other than these cases, an employee who is dismissed for a just and lawful cause is not entitled to separation pay even if the award were to be called by another name.[10] Separation pay is likewise awarded in lieu of reinstatement if reinstatement is no longer feasible, as when the relationship between the employer and employee has become strained.[11] Still, in some cases, separation pay or financial assistance may be extended as a measure of social justice. PLDT v. NLRC settled the matter on the award and amount of financial assistance or separation pay that may be awarded a legally separated employee based on social or compassionate justice. This Court held: | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| A recall of recent cases decided bearing on the issue reveals that when the termination is legally justified on any of the grounds under Art. 282, separation pay was not allowed. In Ha Yuan Restaurant v. NLRC,[68] we deleted the award of separation pay to an employee who, while unprovoked, hit her co-worker's face, causing injuries, which then resulted in a series of fights and scuffles between them. We viewed her act as serious misconduct which did not warrant the award of separation pay. In House of Sara Lee v. Rey,[69] this Court deleted the award of separation pay to a branch supervisor who regularly, without authorization, extended the payment deadlines of the company's sales agents. Since the cause for the supervisor's dismissal involved her integrity (which can be considered as breach of trust), she was not worthy of compassion as to deserve separation pay based on her length of service. In Gustilo v. Wyeth Phils., Inc.,[70] this Court found no exceptional circumstance to warrant the grant of financial assistance to an employee who repeatedly violated the company's disciplinary rules and regulations and whose employment was thus terminated for gross and habitual neglect of his duties. In the doctrinal case of San Miguel v. Lao,[71] this Court reversed and set aside the ruling of the CA granting retirement benefits or separation pay to an employee who was dismissed for willful breach of trust and confidence by causing the delivery of raw materials, which are needed for its glass production plant, to its competitor. While a review of the case reports does not reveal a case involving a termination by reason of the commission of a crime against the employer or his/her family which dealt with the issue of separation pay, it would be adding insult to injury if the employer would still be compelled to shell out money to the offender after the harm done. | |||||
|
2007-07-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Section 7, Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code provides that when the employee is dismissed for any of the just causes under Article 282[13] of the Labor Code, he shall not be entitled to termination pay without prejudice to applicable collective bargaining agreement or voluntary employer policy or practice.[14] Separation pay shall be allowed only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.[15] Separation pay in such case is granted to stand as a "measure of social justice."[16] If the cause for the termination of employment cannot be considered as one of mere inefficiency or incompetence but an act that constitutes an utter disregard for the interest of the employer or a palpable breach of trust in him, the grant by the Court of separation benefits is hardly justifiable.[17] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Notably, the Court has also disallowed claims for retirement benefits in valid dismissal cases because the retirement plan itself precluded employees dismissed for cause from availing it.[27] Although no such prohibition in the retirement plan was alleged or proved in this case, we nevertheless deny petitioner's claims because his offenses, vis-á-vis his long years of service with the bank, reflect a regrettable lack of loyalty which he should have strengthened instead of betrayed.[28] | |||||
|
2005-02-28 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The award of separation pay is required for dismissals due to causes specified under Articles 283[13] and 284[14] of the Labor Code, as well as for illegal dismissals in which reinstatement is no longer feasible.[15] On the other hand, an employee dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under Article 282[16] of the Labor Code is not, as a rule, entitled to separation pay.[17] | |||||