Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 202 views

    PLDT Vs Abucay Digest

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Ortega
    Marilyn Abucay was employed by PLDT for 10 years until she was discovered accepting bribes from customers to facilitate phone connections. PLDT terminated her employment, which the NLRC found valid but still ordered PLDT to pay separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that Abucay was not entitled to separation pay. As a general rule under labor law, employees dismissed for just causes do not receive separation pay. The Court created an exception if the dismissal was for reasons other than serious misconduct or offenses involving moral character. However, in Abucay's case, her dismissal for accepting bribes constituted dishonesty and immorality, so she was not deserving of separation pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PLDT Vs Abucay Digest

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Ortega
    202 views2 pages
    Marilyn Abucay was employed by PLDT for 10 years until she was discovered accepting bribes from customers to facilitate phone connections. PLDT terminated her employment, which the NLRC found valid but still ordered PLDT to pay separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that Abucay was not entitled to separation pay. As a general rule under labor law, employees dismissed for just causes do not receive separation pay. The Court created an exception if the dismissal was for reasons other than serious misconduct or offenses involving moral character. However, in Abucay's case, her dismissal for accepting bribes constituted dishonesty and immorality, so she was not deserving of separation pay.

    Original Description:

    Pldt vs Abucay

    Original Title

    Pldt vs Abucay Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Marilyn Abucay was employed by PLDT for 10 years until she was discovered accepting bribes from customers to facilitate phone connections. PLDT terminated her employment, which the NLRC found valid but still ordered PLDT to pay separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that Abucay was not entitled to separation pay. As a general rule under labor law, employees dismissed for just causes do not receive separation pay. The Court created an exception if the dismissal was for reasons other than serious misconduct or offenses involving moral character. However, in Abucay's case, her dismissal for accepting bribes constituted dishonesty and immorality, so she was not deserving of separation pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    202 views2 pages

    PLDT Vs Abucay Digest

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel Ortega
    Marilyn Abucay was employed by PLDT for 10 years until she was discovered accepting bribes from customers to facilitate phone connections. PLDT terminated her employment, which the NLRC found valid but still ordered PLDT to pay separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that Abucay was not entitled to separation pay. As a general rule under labor law, employees dismissed for just causes do not receive separation pay. The Court created an exception if the dismissal was for reasons other than serious misconduct or offenses involving moral character. However, in Abucay's case, her dismissal for accepting bribes constituted dishonesty and immorality, so she was not deserving of separation pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PLDT vs ABUCAY

    G.R. No. 80609

    August 23, 1988

    Facts:
    Marilyn Abucay has been an employee of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
    (PLDT) for ten years when it was discovered that she accepted bribes from certain
    customers in order to facilitate the phone connections of said customers. PLDT terminated
    her employment. A labor case was filed by Abucay. The National Labor Relations
    Commission (NLRC) found the dismissal to be valid but nevertheless, the NLRC ordered
    PLDT to pay Abucay separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service.
    PLDT assailed the said decision. PLDT averred that separation pay is only available in
    cases where the employee has been illegally dismissed and reinstatement is no longer
    possible. PLDT further argued that to award Abucay separation pay is tantamount to
    rewarding her misdeeds.
    The Solicitor General, arguing for the NLRC, cited numerous previous cases where
    separation pay has been awarded by the Supreme Court even if the employees dismissal
    were due to just and authorized causes.
    ISSUE: Whether or not Abucay is entitled to separation pay.
    HELD: No. In this case, the Supreme Court finally set the rules as to when separation pay
    is proper in cases where the employee is dismissed for valid reasons.
    As a rule, and under the Labor Code, a person dismissed for just and authorized causes is
    not entitled to separation pay. However, based on equity, an exception can be made if the
    employee is 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.
    In the case at bar, the reason for Abucays dismissal is due to her acceptance of a bribe
    which is dishonesty and is immoral. The fact that she has worked with the PLDT for more
    than a decade, if it is to be considered at all, should be taken against her as it reflects a

    regrettable lack of loyalty that she should have strengthened instead of betraying during all
    of her 10 years of service with the company. The court also made a pronouncement:

    You might also like