Case Summary (G.R. No. 188747)
Procedural History
Del Rosario filed for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter (30 May 2002) dismissed the complaint but, observing 21 years’ service without derogatory record, awarded separation pay at half-month salary per year. Manila Water’s appeals to the NLRC (30 September 2003; 28 April 2005) were dismissed on technical grounds. The Court of Appeals (31 March 2009) found grave abuse in those dismissals, reinstated the Arbiter’s decision, and affirmed separation pay. The CA denied reconsideration (7 July 2009). Manila Water sought review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether an employee dismissed for serious misconduct—specifically theft of employer property—is entitled to separation pay as a matter of social justice or equity under existing law and jurisprudence.
Appeal and Jurisdiction
Del Rosario did not appeal the dismissal ruling; only Manila Water appealed the award of separation pay. Under settled jurisprudence, an appellant may not seek affirmative relief beyond what was granted below. The legality of the dismissal is final and not before the Court. The sole issue is the propriety of the separation-pay award.
Legal Principles on Separation Pay
Article 282 of the Labor Code enumerates just causes for termination; Section 7, Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules provides that separation pay is not due when termination is for just cause, except in “exceptional cases” as an act of social justice or on equitable grounds, provided the dismissal was not for serious misconduct or causes reflecting on moral character.
In PLDT v. NLRC, the Court held that separation pay as social justice is available only when dismissal is valid but for causes other than serious misconduct or moral-character offenses (e.g., theft). Toyota Motor Phils. extended exclusions to willful disobedience, gross neglect, fraud, breach of trust, and crimes against the employer. Daabay v. Coca-Cola reaffirmed that separation pay cannot be granted to employees dismissed for theft. Central Pangasinan held that long service does not justify separation pay when misconduct reflects betrayal of loyalty.
Application to the Case
Del Rosario’s confessed theft of company property constitutes serious misconduct and breach of trust reflecting on moral character. Jurisprudence denies separation pay in such inst
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 188747)
Relevant Facts
- In October 1979, Carlito Del Rosario was employed by MWSS as an Instrument Technician.
- Under R.A. No. 8041 and EO No. 286 (1996), MWSS was reorganized; Manila Water absorbed certain MWSS employees, including Del Rosario.
- Del Rosario’s official start date with Manila Water was 1 August 1997.
- In May 2000, Manila Water discovered 24 missing water meters from its stockroom and suspected Del Rosario and a co-employee of pilferage and sale of the meters to a contractor.
- On 23 June 2000, Manila Water directed Del Rosario to submit a written explanation within 72 hours why he should not be disciplined for the missing meters.
- Del Rosario’s letter-explanation confessed involvement, pleaded for forgiveness, and promised not to repeat the conduct.
- A formal administrative hearing was conducted on 29 June 2000, where Del Rosario’s culpability under Section 11.1 of the Company’s Code of Conduct (theft of company property) was established.
- On 3 July 2000, Manila Water dismissed Del Rosario for serious misconduct.
Procedural History
- Del Rosario filed before the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming coercion in his confession and lack of counsel, thus invalidating his dismissal.
- Manila Water countered that Del Rosario’s admissions during both the written explanation and formal investigation justified dismissal under the Code of Conduct.
- On 30 May 2002, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Del Rosario’s illegal dismissal complaint for lack of merit but awarded him separation pay equivalent to one-half month’s salary for every year of service (1 August 1997 to June 2000), totaling ₱118,062.00.
- Manila Water appealed to the NLRC; on 30 September 2003, the NLRC dismissed the appeal for failure to a