ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 138679. July 12, 1999]

HANNOVER INDUSTRIES, INC. et al. vs. RUBY SOLIVA.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 12, 1999.

G.R. No. 138679 (Hannover Industries, Inc. et al. vs. Ruby Soliva.)

The urgent motion of petitioners for extension of thirty (30) days from 4 June 1999 within which to file petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED with warning that this is the last extension given.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision, dated March 23, 1999, of the Court of Appeals, which, after sustaining the findings of both the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Labor Arbiter that respondent Ruby Soliva had voluntarily resigned from petitioner Hannover Industries, Inc. (HII) and not illegally dismissed, nonetheless ordered HII to pay Soliva separation pay, as follows:

Be that as it may, the Court is inclined on equitable grounds and by reason of petitioner's [Ruby Soliva] past services to respondents [Hannover Industries, Inc. and Chua] to award severance compensation. Poor health and other personal reasons appear to have impelled petitioner to leave her enjoyment with respondents. Indeed of waiting for respondents to terminate her employment, petitioner must heave decided to resign to enable them to hire a replacement. This laudable gesture deserves due consideration. And, to the mind of the Court, payment of separation pay is the only feasible and appropriate way of compensating her for her graceful exit after 22 years of service to respondents.

. . .

Needless, to say, the Court finds nothing on record to show that petitioner is undeserving of compassionate justice. Payment of separation pay is here justified as a measure of social justice.

WHEREFORE, the NLRC Decision of April 29, 1998, is hereby SET ASIDE. Accordingly, judgment is rendered ordering respondents Hannover Industries Inc. and Bentio Chua to pay petitioner Ruby S. Soliva separation pay in accordance with the Labor Code from which shall be deducted the amount of P15,000.00 already received by her.

Petitioner HII contends that "THE CA COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT AWARDED SEPARATION PAY TO A RESIGNING EMPLOYEE WHEN THERE WAS NO CONTRACT JUSTIFYING ITS AWARD, THERE WAS NO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE SAME AND IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT SUCH AWARD IS THE EMPLOYERIS PRACTICE."

The contention is without merit.

Generally, an employee who voluntarily resigns is not entitled to separation pay. Under Arts. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, an 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 continued 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 SCRA 689 (1994).] However, it is settled that separation pay may also be allowed as a measure of social justice in those instances where the employee was validly dismissed for causes other than 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, considering the more than 22 years of service Soliva had rendered t petitioner HII as spare parts helper and the fact that she had to resign for health reasons, the order of the Court of Appeals to petitioner HII to pay her separation benefits is justified.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of showing of grave abuse of 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