Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > August 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 75413 August 10, 1989 - JOSE P. DEL CASTILLO, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 75413. August 10, 1989.]

JOSE P. DEL CASTILLO, JR., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MARIWASA HONDA, INC., KAZUE ITO & ROGELIO P. ANTALAN, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR LAW; ON EMPLOYMENT; GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION; DISHONESTY, A VALID GROUND; CASE AT BAR. — After a careful consideration of the petition and Mariwasa’s comment thereon, We hold that the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter correctly found that petitioner was lawfully dismissed for a just cause — dishonesty.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SEPARATION PAY UNAVAILING IN CASE OF DISHONESTY. — The NLRC erred in awarding to petitioner separation pay equivalent to 5-1/2 months’ salary. An employee who is found guilty of dishonesty deserves no such reward as we held in a similar case. (PLDT v. NLRC Et. Al., G.R. No. 80609, August 23, 1988)

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; DAMAGES IN LIEU OF SEPARATION PAY WHERE IS AN EMPLOYER’S FAILURE TO OBSERVE DUE PROCESS. — The decision of the NLRC is affirmed except the award of separation pay to the employee, Jose P. Del Castillo, Jr., which is hereby set aside. In lieu thereof and in accordance with our ruling in Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80587, February 8, 1989, the employer is ordered to pay the sum of P1,000.00 to the petitioner as damages for the employer’s failure to observe due process in terminating the petitioner’s services.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


The petitioner was the Credit and Collection Manager of Mariwasa Honda, Inc. ("Mariwasa" for brevity) from August 16, 1973 up to April 1, 1981, when the company terminated his services for dishonesty, grave abuse of discretion, gross negligence, and violation of employment policies and procedures.

Among his duties as credit and collection manager was to file collection suits against defaulting dealers and customers. One such dealer was the Anchor Fishing and Trading Supply owned by Henry Samar of Legaspi City. A judgment by compromise was entered against Samar. Upon the debtor’s failure to comply with the judgment, a writ of execution was issued by the court. In the implementation of the writ, a levy was made by the Deputy Sheriff of Legaspi City on twelve (12) parcels of landowner by Samar. However, the sale of the levied properties at public auction was aborted because, at the petitioner’s behest, Samar signed on December 22, 1979, a Deed of Sale often (10), out of twelve (12), of his parcels of land in favor of Mariwasa, and another sale of the remaining two (2) parcels to the petitioner.

A report of this transaction reached the company through some unidentified informant. Having some premonition of impending trouble, petitioner wrote a letter to Emerson T. Coseteng, president of Mariwasa, offering to resign but with salary up to May, 1981, separation pay, and cash conversion of his vacation and sick leaves. He also applied for a 15-days vacation leave effective March 16, 1981. However, before he could take a vacation, the company’s manager, Kazue Ito, advised him on March 13, 1981 that effective on that date he was being suspended indefinitely as credit and collection manager; that an investigation of his activities as head of the Credit and Collection Department was being conducted; and that he should effect a smooth turnover of his department to the officer-in-charge of the Special Task Force.

On March 16, 1981, Mariwasa sent telegrams and memos to its branches and dealers advising them that the petitioner was no longer connected with the company, that Cris Cifra had taken his place as credit and collection manager, and that any transactions with him after March 13, 1981 would not be honored by the company.

On March 17, 1981, petitioner addressed a letter to the Personnel Manager, Rogelio Antalan, reiterating his to be allowed to resign with separation pay and vacation leaves and sick leaves conversion.

Shortly thereafter, he learned about the company’s memos to its branches and dealers disauthorizing him to do business with them. In a letter dated April 3,1981 to the manager, he withdrew his offer to resign and his application for a 15-day leave. He assailed the order for his indefinite suspension and investigation and asked the company to recall it.

On April 8, 1981, the company advised him that his services were terminated effective April 1, 1981 for loss of trust and confidence. He, thereafter, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal in the NLRC.

After hearing the complaint, the Labor Arbiter found that complainant has not been accorded his basic right to due process" (p, 31, Rollo) for he "was already dismissed from the service before any investigation was formally conducted by the said company" (p. 32, Rollo). Nevertheless, he held: "that respondent company had every reason to sever, as in fact, it did sever, its relationship with the complainant (Del Castillo)" for he prostituted his office "in order to gain material wealth at the expense of the company" (pp. 34-35, Rollo). The pertinent portion of the Labor Arbiter’s decision is quoted below:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Delving, however, into the cause/s that led the management to terminate the services of the complainant, it would appear that respondent company had every reason to sever, as in fact, it did sever, its relationship with the complainant herein. It has been clearly established that complainant wrote a letter to the Provincial Sheriff of Albay requesting that the Notice of levy filed by Deputy Sheriff Ernesto Ramirez on January 26, 1979 be canceled and/or withdrawn on the ground that judgment debtor, Henry C. Samar, has already executed in favor of the respondent company a Deed of Sale covering only ten (10) parcels of land, which were part of the twelve (12) originally levied in January 1979; that the two (2) parcels were obtained by the complainant for himself on December 19, 1979 from the spouses Aida B. Samar and Henry Samar three (3) days before the ten (10) parcels of land were conveyed to the respondent company; that had there been a public auction of the twelve (12) parcels of land levied by the Sheriff, the company would have acquired all the twelve(12) parcels of land instead of only ten (10) parcels; and, that complainant’s action has prejudiced the interest of the respondent company as in this case.

"Assuming that the value of the ten (10) parcels of land was more than enough to cover the judgment debt, the fact that complainant as Collection and Credit Manager acquired the two (2) parcels of land which were also included in the levied properties undeniably exposes himself to the charge of prostituting his office in order to gain material wealth at the expense of the company. By giving him said position, respondent company has reposed in him trust and confidence which, unfortunately, he betrayed by committing acts inimical to the interest of the company. It is within management’s prerogative to seek his dismissal for loss of trust and confidence. It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that an employer cannot be compelled to retain under his employ an employee whose continued employment is inimical to his interest. The law in protecting the interest of the laborer does not authorize the oppression or destruction of the employer." (Emphasis supplied; pp. 34-35, Rollo.)

The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint and ordered the respondent to pay the complainant separation pay equivalent to 5 and 1/2 months salary. However, as his dismissal was for a valid and justifiable cause, his claim for damages was dismissed for lack of merit (p. 37, Rollo). Upon appeal by Del Castillo, the appealed decision was affirmed by the NLRC. He now seeks a review of that decision by this Court.

After a careful consideration of the petition and Mariwasa’s comment thereon, We hold that the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter correctly found that petitioner was lawfully dismissed for a just cause — dishonesty. However, they erred in awarding to him separation pay equivalent to 5-1/2 months’ salary. An employee who is found guilty of dishonesty deserves no such reward. As We held in a similar case:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The Court feels that distinctions are in order. We note that heretofore the separation pay, when it was considered warranted, was required regardless of the nature or degree of the ground proved, be it mere inefficiency or something graver like immorality or dishonesty. The benediction of compassion was made to cover a multitude of sins, as it were, and to justify the helping hand to the validly dismissed employee whatever the reason for his dismissal. This policy should be re-examined. It is time we rationalized the exception, to make it fair to both labor and management, especially to labor.

"There should be no question that where it comes to such valid but not iniquitous causes as failure to comply with work standards, the grant of separation pay to the dismissed employee may be both Just and compassionate, particularly if he has worked for some time with the company. For example, a subordinate who has irreconcilable policy or personal differences with his employer may be validly dismissed for demonstrated loss of coincidence, which is an allowable ground. A working mother who has to be frequently absent because she has also to take care of her child may also be removed because of her poor attendance, this being another authorized ground. It is not the employee’s fault if he does not have the necessary aptitude for his work but on the other hand the company cannot be required to maintain him just the same at the expense of the efficiency of its operations. He too may be validly replaced. Under these and similar circumstances, however, the award to the employee of separation pay would be sustainable under the social justice policy even if the separation is for cause.

"But where the cause of the separation is more serious than mere inefficiency, the generosity of the law must be more discerning. There is no doubt it is compassionate to give separation pay to a salesman if he is dismissed for his inability to fill his quote but surely he does not deserve such generosity if his offense is misappropriation of the receipts of his sales. This is no longer mere in competence but clear dishonesty. A security guard found sleeping on the job is doubt less subject to dismissal but may be allowed separation pay since his conduct, while inept, is not depraved. But if he was in fact not really sleeping but sleeping with a prostitute during his tour of duty and in the company premises, the situation is changed completely. This is not only inefficiency but immorality and the grant of separation pay would be entirely unjustified.

"We hold that hence forth 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. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, 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, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice." (PLDT’ v. NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 80609, August 23, 1988.)

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. The decision of the NLRC is affirmed except the award of separation pay to the employee, Jose P. Del Castillo, Jr., which is hereby set aside. In lieu thereof and in accordance with our ruling in Wenphil Corp. v. NLRC, C.R. No. 80587, February 8, 1989, the employer is ordered to pay the sum of P1,000.00 to the petitioner as damages for the employer’s failure to observe due process in terminating the petitioner’s services. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 86564 August 1, 1989 - RAMON L. LABO, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82849 August 2, 1989 - CEBU OXYGEN & ACETYLENE CO., INC. v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83358 August 2, 1989 - CARIDAY INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84277-78 August 2, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTANISLAO A. BATAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 84637-39 August 2, 1989 - JESUS P. PERLAS, JR v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 50335 August 7, 1989 - FLORENTINO CURSINO v. PEDRO JL. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 77647 August 7, 1989 - CETUS DEVELOPMENT INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81954 August 8, 1989 - CESAR Z. DARIO v. SALVADOR M. MISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 38498 August 10, 1989 - ISAAC BAGNAS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44111 August 10, 1989 - MERCEDES T. RIVERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50732 August 10, 1989 - JOSE BAGTAS JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51910 August 10, 1989 - LITONJUA SHIPPING INC. v. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71527 August 10, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PANTALEON BERBAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74004 August 10, 1989 - A.M. ORETA & CO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75413 August 10, 1989 - JOSE P. DEL CASTILLO, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79766 August 10, 1989 - THELMA YNIGUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79983 August 10, 1989 - BUGNAY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. CRISPIN C. LARON

  • G.R. No. 80770 August 10, 1989 - INTERNATIONAL HARDWARE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 83028-29 August 10, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN MAGDAHONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84302 August 10, 1989 - ANGELITO HERNANDEZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84719 August 10, 1989 - YONG CHAN KIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85590 August 10, 1989 - FLAVIANO BALGOS, JR., ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85668 August 10, 1989 - GELMART INDUSTRIES PHILS., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88259 August 10, 1989 - BOARD OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, ET AL. v. DANIEL ALFONSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48576 August 11, 1989 - MANSUETA T. TIBULAN, ET AL. v. AMADO G. INCIONG

  • G.R. No. 71604 August 11, 1989 - JOSE B. ATIENZA v. PHILIMARE SHIPPING AND EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72494 August 11, 1989 - HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. JACK ROBERT SHERMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72908 August 11, 1989 - EUFEMIA PAJARILLO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73070 August 11, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO SONGCUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73261 August 11, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BACUS

  • G.R. No. 74229 August 11, 1989 - SHOEMART, INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74768 August 11, 1989 - JUANA DE LOS REYES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75368 August 11, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO E. CARINGAL

  • G.R. No. 83334 August 11, 1989 - RENE E. CRISTOBAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83545 August 11, 1989 - ADELFO MACEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85339 August 11, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. ERNEST KHAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 57999, 58143-53 August 15, 1989 - RESURRECCION SUZARA, ET AL. v. ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 43619 August 16, 1989 - LUZON BROKERAGE CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54224-25 August 16, 1989 - ANTONIO TAMBUNTING v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 64255 August 16, 1989 - EVARISTO ABAYA, JR. v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 80918 August 16, 1989 - JOSEFINA M. PRINCIPE v. PHILIPPINE-SINGAPORE TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82509 August 16, 1989 - COUNTRY BANKERS INSURANCE CORP. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE AND SURETY CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61754 August 17, 1989 - ROBERTO TING, ET AL. v. AUGUSTO E. VILLARIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70839 August 17, 1989 - REFRACTORIES CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76936 August 17, 1989 - VIRGILIO RAPOSON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78447 August 17, 1989 - RESTITUTO CALMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83206 August 17, 1989 - DANILO WAJE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88386 August 17, 1989 - UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. RUBEN AYSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 29341 August 21, 1989 - EDITH SUSTIGUER, ET AL. v. JOSE TAMAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 48541 August 21, 1989 - BERNABE CASTILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49143 August 21, 1989 - ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING COMPANY, INC. v. JOSE J. LEIDO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62896 August 21, 1989 - CARLOS DAVID, ET AL. v. OSCAR C. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 70705 August 21, 1989 - MOISES DE LEON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62918 August 23, 1989 - FILIPINAS GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-705-RTJ August 23, 1989 - LIGAYA GONZALES-AUSTRIA, ET AL. v. EMMANUEL M. ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77439 August 24, 1989 - DONALD DEE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 2104 August 24, 1989 - NARCISO MELENDREZ, ET AL. v. REYNERIO I. DECENA

  • G.R. Nos. L-46753-54 August 25, 1989 - ANTONIO SOLIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50459 August 25, 1989 - LEONARDO D. SUARIO v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51206 August 25, 1989 - NORBERTO MASIPEQUIÑA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55520 August 25, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR SAMSON

  • G.R. No. 71169 August 25, 1989 - JOSE D. SANGALANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71753 August 25, 1989 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74730 August 25, 1989 - CALTEX PHILIPPINES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78554 August 25, 1989 - ST. ANNE MEDICAL CENTER v. HENRY M. PAREL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80112 August 25, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON MACUTO

  • G.R. No. 81262 August 25, 1989 - GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85331 August 25, 1989 - KAPALARAN BUS LINE v. ANGEL CORONADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61297 August 28, 1989 - GRACIANO B. VALLES, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF SAMAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73996 August 28, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO TAGLE

  • G.R. No. 75931 August 28, 1989 - CASIANO S. SEDAYA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76537 August 28, 1989 - QUEZON BEARING & PARTS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46192 August 29, 1989 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47696 August 29, 1989 - JOSE MA. ANSALDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78272 August 29, 1989 - MERLIN CONSING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79307 August 29, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. RAMON P. MAKASIAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81390 August 29, 1989 - NATHANIEL OLACAO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83108 August 29, 1989 - OFFSHORE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84032 August 29, 1989 - ELADIO CH. RUBIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84644 August 29, 1989 - ROLANDO R. LIGON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84811 August 29, 1989 - SOLID HOMES, INC. v. TERESITA PAYAWAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85278 August 29, 1989 - RTG CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. BARTOLOME C. AMOGUIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71169 August 30, 1988

    JOSE D. SANGALANG, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54424 August 31, 1989 - NASIPIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-58847 August 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BARTOLOME BARRANCO

  • G.R. No. L-59876 August 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIOSDADO DE GUIA

  • G.R. No. 72709 August 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 73317 August 31, 1989 - THOMAS YANG v. MARCELINO R. VALDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74214 August 31, 1989 - ST. LOUIS COLLEGE OF TUGUEGARAO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75289 August 31, 1989 - KAMAYA POINT HOTEL v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75838 August 31, 1989 - UERM EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW v. MINISTER OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78997 August 31, 1989 - VERONICA B. REYES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79387 August 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. MACALINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83523 August 31, 1989 - GROLIER INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ARTHUR L. AMANSEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86026 August 31, 1989 - FILIPINAS PORT SERVICES, INC. DAMASTICOR v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.