CASE DIGEST: PLDT V. NLRC; G.R. No. L-80609; 23 August 1998

Separation Pay as a measure of Social Justice

PLDT V. NLRC
G.R. No. L-80609
23 August  1998 
Cruz, J.:

FACTS:

Marilyn Abucay is a traffic operator of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company and was accused for having demanded and received the total amount of P3,800.00 in consideration of her promise to facilitate approval of applications for telephone installation.

After investigation and hearing, she was found guilty as charged and accordingly separated from the service.

Thus, she went to the Ministry of Labor and Employment claiming she had been illegally removed. After consideration of the evidence and arguments of the parties, the company was sustained and the complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. Nevertheless, the labor arbiter held that the complainant must be given one month pay for every year of service as financial assistance.

Both the petitioner and the private respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Board, which however, upheld the LA's decision in toto and dismissed the appeals.

Hence, the petitioner went to the Supreme Court assailing the award as having been made with grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE:

Whether Abucay is entitled to financial assistance.

RULING: 

No. Abucay is not entitled to financial assistance.

The Supreme Court held that 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. However, where the reason for the valid dismissal is habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial assistance on the ground of social justice.

 

Thus, it held that the grant of separation pay to Abucay is unjustified. It found out that the private respondent has been dismissed for dishonesty which she herself has impliedly admitted. In the mind of the Court the respondent should have strengthened her loyalty rather betraying her employer. If the length of her service was regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of dismissal, such will become a prize for disloyalty which perverting the meaning of social justice and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of all undesirables.