- Title
- Eastern Paper Mills, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission
- Case
- G.R. No. 85497
- Decision Date
- Feb 24, 1989
- In the case of Eastern Paper Mills, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee lawfully dismissed for serious misconduct is not entitled to separation pay, as it would reward rather than punish the erring employee for their offense.
252 Phil. 618
FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 85497. February 24, 1989 ] EASTERN PAPER MILLS, INC., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND EDUARDO MALABANAN, RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
D E C I S I O N
GRINO-AQUINO, J.:
On January 10, 1983, the petitioner, after due notice, investigation, and hearing, dismissed the private respondent Eduardo Malabanan, an accounts payable clerk, for having physically assaulted and verbally abused, within full view and hearing of the other employees, a superior officer, Mariano Lopingco, who was then the personnel and administrative manager of the company. The reason for the assault was private respondent's resentment at being suspected of having stolen an ash tray from Lopingco's office and being questioned about the matter by the security office.
Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal (Annex "A") in the Ministry (now Department) of Labor and Employment (NLRC-NCR-Case No. 1-191-83).
After trial, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on
On appeal by the petitioner to the NLRC, the Commission on
Charging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC, the company elevated the case to this Court on a petition for certiorari.
The petition is meritorious. Earlier decisions of this Court which, in the name of compassionate justice, awarded separation pay or financial assistance to employees who were lawfully dismissed for cause, were re-examined and abandoned in the recent case of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 80609,
An award of separation pay to an employee who was dismissed for a valid cause (in this case, for serious misconduct) is legally indefensible. It contravenes Rule 1, Sec. 7, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code which provides 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 the 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.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is granted. The decision of the National Labor Relations Commission dismissing the private respondent's complaint for illegal dismissal is affirmed, but the award of separation pay or financial assistance to him is hereby set aside for lack of legal basis.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.