November 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 164181 : November 28, 2011]
NISSAN MOTORS PHILS., INC. v. VICTORINO ANGELO
G.R. No. 164181 (NISSAN MOTORS PHILS., INC. v. VICTORINO ANGELO). - Before this Court is the Motion for Clarificatory Ruling dated October 27, 2011 of petitioner Nissan Motors Phils., Inc., asking this Court to clarify as to the award of separation pay in its Decision dated September 14, 2011. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review dated July 10, 2004 of petitioner Nissan Motors Phils., Inc. is hereby GRANTED. Consequently, the Decision dated March 24, 2004 of the Court of Appeals and the latter's Resolution dated June 9, 2004 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and the Decision dated September 29, 2000 of the Labor Arbiter and its Resolution dated February 14, 2002 are hereby REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner shall award respondent his separation pay, the computation of which shall be based on the prevailing pertinent laws on the matter.
SO ORDERED.
As correctly pointed out by petitioner, the computation of separation pay based on equity is not in uniform as shown in the past rulings of this Court. In Tanala v. NLRC,[1] this Court awarded separation pay, the computation of which is at one month pay of the employee's latest salary for every year of service. The said employee was ruled to have been validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule or regulation adopted for the conduct of the company's business. On the other hand, this Court, in Aparante, Sr. v. NLRC,[2] awarded separation pay based on equity, computed at one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service on an employee dismissed due to willful disobedience. This Court finds that the ruling in Aparante, Sr. v. NLRC,[3] being more recent and in essence, similar to the ruling in the present, case, is most applicable. Hence, the separation pay should be computed at one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service. The dispositive portion of the Decision dated September 14, 2011 of this Court, therefore, now reads:cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review dated July 10, 2004 of petitioner Nissan Motors Phils., Inc. is hereby GRANTED. Consequently, the Decision dated March 24, 2004 of the Court of Appeals and the latter�s Resolution dated June 9, 2004 are hereby REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and the Decision dated September 29, 2000 of the Labor Arbiter and its Resolution dated February 14, 2002 are hereby REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that petitioner shall award respondent his separation pay, the computation of which is at one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service.[4]
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] 322 Phil. 343 (1996).[2] 387 Phil. 96 (2000).
[3] Id.
[4] Based on Aparante, Sr. v. NLRC, supra note 2.