Case Digest (G.R. No. 118041)
Facts:
Phimco Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Renato Carpio, G.R. No. 118041, June 11, 1997, First Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner is PHIMCO Industries, Inc.; respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Renato Carpio, an employee formerly of PHIMCO. Carpio was hired by PHIMCO on April 1, 1983 as a log and lumber grader, promoted in 1987 to documentation assistant, and in 1990 assigned to export of selective lumber. On August 14, 1991 he submitted a letter of resignation to take effect fifteen days later (August 30, 1991).
Although Carpio continued to report for work during the 15-day period, PHIMCO did not act on his resignation before he left for the United States. On September 3, 1991 (received September 4), PHIMCO’s Human Resource Manager required Carpio to explain within seven days his failure to serve the company’s 30-day advance written notice and to seek departmental approval for a shorter notification period. Carpio responded by letter clarifying his intent to seek opportunities in the United States and requesting separation pay.
On November 4, 1991 PHIMCO, invoking Rules 7, 7.1 and 7.2 of its Employee Handbook (which required management acceptance of resignations, a 30-day written notice unless authorized otherwise, and continued work during the notice period), notified Carpio that he was terminated for failure to comply with those rules and denied separation pay pursuant to the Handbook’s forfeiture clause.
Carpio filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter on June 16, 1993 for non-payment of separation pay. The Labor Arbiter (February 21, 1994) found the dismissal tainted with bad faith and ordered PHIMCO to pay separation benefits equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision in toto on July 29, 1994 and denied PHIMCO’s motion for reconsideration. PHIMCO...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Labor Arbiter’s award of separation pay to Renato Carpio?
- Was Carpio’s termination for just cause under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code (willful disobedience)?
- If dismissal was not justified, was Carpio entitled to separation pay under Article 283 of the Labor Code, or to some other award?
- If entitled to separation pay, what is the correct measure of th...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)