Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RENO FOODS v. NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA - KATIPUNAN ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBER

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 188035 2014-07-02	IMMACULATE CONCEPTION ACADEMY v. EVELYN E. CAMILON VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Pursuant to the aforementioned rulings, respondent is clearly not entitled to separation pay. Respondent was holding a position which involves a high degree of responsibility requiring trust and confidence as it involves the financial interests of the school. However, respondent proved to be unfit for the position when she failed to exercise the necessary diligence in the performance of her duties and responsibilities as Chief Accountant, thus justifying her dismissal from service. Respondent was guilty of gross and habitual negligence when she failed to regularly pre-audit the report of the school cashier, check the entries therein and keep custody of the petty cash fund. Had respondent been assiduously doing her job, the unaccounted school funds would have been discovered right away. Respondent's dereliction in her duties spanned a period of 11 months thus enabling the school cashier to misappropriate tuition fee payments, manipulate the school records and destroy official receipts, in the total amount of P1,167,181.45 to the prejudice of petitioners. Hence, she should not be granted separation pay. To rule otherwise would be to reward respondent for her negligent acts instead of punishing her for her offense. As we held in Reno Foods, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan,[23] "[s]eparation pay is only warranted when the cause for termination is not attributable to the employee's fault, such as those provided in Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as well as in cases of illegal dismissal in which reinstatement is no longer feasible. It is not allowed when an employee is dismissed for just cause."
	GR No. 184011 2013-09-18	REYNALDO HAYAN MOYA v. FIRST SOLID RUBBER INDUSTRIES PEREZ, J.
Indeed, as found below, Moya's length of service should be taken against him. The pronouncement in Reno Foods, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM) - Katipunan[45] is instructive on the matter:x x x Length of service is not a bargaining chip that can simply be stacked against the employer. After all, an employer-employee relationship is symbiotic where both parties benefit from mutual loyalty and dedicated service. If an employer had treated his employee well, has accorded him fairness and adequate compensation as determined by law, it is only fair to expect a long-time employee to return such fairness with at least some respect and honesty. Thus, it may be said that betrayal by a long-time employee is more insulting and odious for a fair employer.[46] (Emphasis supplied).
	GR No. 201701 2013-06-03	UNILEVER PHILIPPINES v. MARIA RUBY M. RIVERA MENDOZA, J.
In the subsequent case of Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. National Labor Relations Commission,[20] it was further elucidated that "in addition to serious misconduct, in dismissals based on other grounds under Art. 282 like willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty, fraud or willful breach of trust, and commission of a crime against the employer or his family, separation pay should not be conceded to the dismissed employee."[21] In Reno Foods, Inc, v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan,[22] the Court wrote that "separation pay is only warranted when the cause for termination is not attributable to the employee's fault, such as those provided in Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as well as in cases of illegal dismissal in which reinstatement is no longer feasible. It is not allowed when an employee is dismissed for just cause."[23]
	GR No. 181974 2012-02-01	LYNVIL FISHING ENTERPRISES v. ANDRES G. ARIOLA PEREZ, J.
In Nicolas v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] we held that a criminal conviction is not necessary to find just cause for employment termination. Otherwise stated, an employee's acquittal in a criminal case, especially one that is grounded on the existence of reasonable doubt, will not preclude a determination in a labor case that he is guilty of acts inimical to the employer's interests.[33] In the reverse, the finding of probable cause is not followed by automatic adoption of such finding by the labor tribunals.
	GR No. 178903 2011-05-30	JULIET G. APACIBLE v. MULTIMED INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED CARPIO MORALES, J.
Reno Foods, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM))-Katipunan[16] explains the propriety of granting separation pay in termination cases in this wise: The law is clear. Separation pay is only warranted when the cause for termination is not attributable to the employee's fault, such as those provided in Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as well as in cases of illegal dismissal in which reinstatement is no longer feasible. It is not allowed when an employee is dismissed for just cause, such as serious misconduct.
	GR No. 179801 2010-06-18	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. NLRC PEREZ, J.
In the recent case of Reno Foods v. NLM,[27] this Court reiterated the Toyota ruling and maintained that labor adjudicatory officials and the Court of Appeals must demur the award of separation pay based on social justice when an employee's dismissal is based on serious misconduct or willful disobedience; gross and habitual neglect of duty; fraud or willful breach of trust; or commission of a crime against the person of the employer or his immediate family - grounds under Art. 282 of the Labor Code that sanction dismissals of employees.[28]