ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138925. July 19, 1999]

DELNOR FOODS CORP. vs. CA, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 19, 1999.

G.R. No. 138925 (Delnor Foods Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al.)

This is a petition for review on certiorari from the decision, dated June 7, 1999, of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the resolution dated May 29, 1998, of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), affirming the decision, dated May 6, 1997, of Labor Arbiter Arthur L. Amansec, which declared the strike staged by Delnor Labor Union (DLU) on June 22, 1994 to be illegal but required Delnor Foods Corporation (DFC) to pay the officers of DLU who were dismissed separation pay equivalent to 30 days salary for every year of service.

In affirming the resolution of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, the Court of Appeals held:

The prevailing rule is that separation pay shall be proper only in case of invalid dismissals. In this case, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC awarded separation pay despite its findings that the private respondents engaged in an illegal strike. We agree with the assailed decision.

. . . .

The Supreme Court laid down the rule that separation pay may be allowed as a measure of social justice in cases where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.

Misconduct is improper or wrong. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious must be of such grave and aggravate character and not merely trivial and unimportant.

In the instant petition, DFC raises the following assignment of error:

Whether or not the award of separation pay to the respondent union officers/members is legal, lawful and proper following the declaration of the concerted activity conducted by the respondent union on June 22, 1994 as an illegal strike by the National Labor Relations Commission.

The instant petition is without merit.

Strictly speaking, an employee who was dismissed for cause under Art. 282 of the Labor Code after appropriate proceeding in compliance with the requirements of due process is not entitled to separation pay. Under Arts. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, such employee is entitled to separation pay only if he was dismissed due to the following reasons: (a) the installation of labor-saving devices, (b) redundancy, (c) retrenchment, (d) cessation of the employer's business, and (e) when the employee is suffering from a disease and his continues employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health and to the health of his co-employees.1 [Zenco Sales, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 234 689 (1994).]

However, the mandates of the Constitution for the improvement of lot of workers more than sufficiently justify the award of separation pay in proper cases even if the dismissal of the employee concerned was for cause. Separation pay may also be allowed as a measure of social justice in those instances where the employee was validly dismissed for causes other then serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.2 [Philippine Long Distance Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, 169 SCRA 671 (1988).]

In this case, the strike stage by DLU on June 22, 1994 was declared illegal because the failure of the company to grant the money claims of the workers is not a valid ground for the same. The acts of the officers of DLU in staging the strike could hardly be characterized as serious misconduct or reflecting on their moral character. There is, therefore, no reason to deny them separation pay.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of showing that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of its discretion.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE