INC. (PET, Inc.) January 20, 2009 | Chico-Nazario, J. | When to/not to tilt the scales of justice as a measure of equity and compassionate social justice Digester: Arreza, Jose Augusto SUMMARY: Petitioner Tirazona was dismissed from service by Respondent PET, Inc. for her willful breach of trust reposed upon her by her employer. The NLRC, CA, and SC all found her dismissal as justified. In her 2nd Motion for Reconsideration, she prayed for the invalidation of her dismissal and for the award of separation pay for just causes on the basis of equity. The SC denied her petition for lack of merit. DOCTRINE: 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. FACTS: Because of her improper handling of a situation involving a rank-and-file employee, officers/directors of respondent PET, Inc. called the attention of petitioner Ma. Wenelita Tirazona, the Administrative Manager of respondent company. Claiming she was denied due process, she demanded Php 2M indemnity from PET and its officers/directors. She also admitted to reading a confidential letter addressed to PET officers/directors containing the legal opinion of the counsel of PET regarding her case. Because of all this, she was validly terminated on the ground that she willfully breached the trust and confidence reposed in her by her employed. The SC denied her original petition.
Apr. 29, 2008: Petitioner moved for reconsideration
praying that her dismissal be declared illegal and that she be awarded separation pay and retirement benefits out of humanitarian considerations. But the SC denied MR. Aug. 21, 2008: Petitioner filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration for the reconsideration of the SC resolution raising essentially the same arguments and prayers.
RULING: Motion for leave to file a second Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit. W/N her dismissal was justified YES W/N she may be awarded separation pay out of humanitarian considerations NO First of all, a 2nd MR is prohibited, except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons [Sec. 2, Rule 52, ROC]. Here, no extraordinary persuasive reasons are present to allow the 2nd MR. Next, as re petitioners dismissal, the general rule is that an employee who has been dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under Art. 282 of the Labor Code is not entitled to separation pay. Only unjustly dismissed employees are entitled to retirement benefits and other privileges including reinstatement and backwages. An exception, however, is that separation pay or other financial assistance may be allowed to an employee dismissed for just causes on the basis of equity. This 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.
Given the above, petitioner is not entitled to the
award of separation pay for violating the trust and confidence reposed in her by her employer when she arrogantly demanded from respondent the exorbitant amount of Php 2M in damages with a threat of a lawsuit if the money was not paid within five days. She also continually refused to cooperate with PETs investigation of her case. Lastly, petitioner tried to persuade the Court to consider in her favor the length of her service to PET, but in the end, failed. She claimed that she was employed by PET for 26 years. However, it was later on found out that she had only been there for 2 years and 9 months. The cases she cited to support her case were misleading as the circumstances were totally different from hers.