ALMIRA et al. vs BF Goodrich (1974) ART 4 There is, in addition, his family to consider.

Construction in Favor of Labor: Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows

COMPASSIONATE JUSTICE on those dependent on the wage-earner. The misery
and pain attendant on the loss of jobs that could be
What is readily apparent in this appeal from a avoided if there be acceptance of the view that under
decision of respondent Court of Industrial Relations, all the circumstances of this case, petitioners should
declaring a strike illegal because of the means not be deprived of their means of livelihood. Nor is
employed, and dismissing petitioners, was the high this to condone what had been done by them. For all
pitch of bitterness that marked the relationship this while, since private respondent considered them
between labor and management in the establishment separated from the service, they had not been
of private respondent, B. F. Goodrich Philippines, Inc. paid.From the strictly juridical standpoint where a
decision may be made to rest an informed judgment
FACTS: rather than rigid rules, all the equities of the case
must be accorded their due weight
Petitioners committed mass picketing because (DISCRETIONARY JUSTICE). Finally, labor law
management would not consider their union as the determinations, to quote from Bultmann, should be
exclusive collective bargaining representative, this not only secundum rationem but also secundum
resulted in illegal and unlawful acts against caritatem.This is all that needs to be said except to
customers, supplies and other employees who were remind petitioners that the basic doctrine underlying
not on strike. All held responsible for such acts were the provisions of theConstitution so solicitous of labor
identified.A notice accompanied by instructions to as well as the applicable statutory norms is that both
personnel at all levels was publicized stating that for the working force and management are necessary
all employees not participating in the illegal strike to components of the economy. The rights of labor have
report for work on a certain day, otherwise such been expanded. Concern is evident for its welfare.
failure will be considered as participation therein. The advantages thus conferred, however, call for
Petitioners who were not seen in the picket line on the attendant responsibilities. The ways of the law are not
said date were identified as having failed to report for to be ignored. Those who seek comfort from the
work. It would appear, however, that those who failed Shelter that it affords should be the last to engage
to report for work likewise were seenpicketing the inactivities which negate the very concept of a legal
premises of the complainant after. The CIR, under order as antithetical to force and coercion. What is
Judge Salvador, declared that petitioners committed equally important is that in the steps to be taken by it
an illegal strike on the basis of the attendant coercive in the pursuit of what it believes to be its rights, the
circumstances, which is likewise an unfair labor advice of those conversant with the requirements of
practice. As a consequence, petitioners lost their legal norms should be sought and should not be
status as employees of herein respondent. ignored. It is even more important that reason and not
violence should be its milieu.
ISSUE:

WON the strike is illegal to cause the termination of

BF Goodrich’s employees.

HELD:

NO.The SC ruled that there were injuries on both

sides because management did not, understandably,
play a passive role confronted as it was with the
unruly disruptive tactics of labor, merely to explain
what cannot be justified. Allthese, however, do not
mean, that petitioner's strike should necessarily be
held to be illegal.It would imply at the very least that
where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever
missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be
visited with a consequence so severe. It is not only
because of the laws concern for the working man.
 company despite her removal for cause. She is,
PLDT vs. NLRC therefore, in effect rewarded rather than punished for
OCTOBER 23, 2012 ~ VBDIAZ her dishonesty, and without any legal authorization or
PLDT vs. NLRC justification. The award is made on the ground of
equity and compassion, which cannot be a substitute
G.R. No. 80609 August 23, 1988 for law. Moreover, such award puts a premium on
dishonesty and encourages instead of deterring
Facts: corruption.

Abucay, a traffic operator of the PLDT, was accused For its part, the public respondent claims that the
by two complainants of having demanded and employee is sufficiently punished with her dismissal.
received from them the total amount of P3,800.00 in The grant of financial assistance is not intended as a
consideration of her promise to facilitate approval of reward for her offense but merely to help her for the
their applications for telephone installation. loss of her employment after working faithfully with
Investigated and heard, she was found guilty as the company for ten years. In support of this position,
charged and accordingly separated from the service. the Solicitor General cites the cases of Firestone Tire
She went to the Ministry of Labor and Employment and Rubber Company of the Philippines v. Lariosa
claiming she had been illegally removed. After and Soco v. Mercantile Corporation of Davao, where
consideration of the evidence and arguments of the the employees were dismissed for cause but were
parties, the company was sustained and the nevertheless allowed separation pay on grounds of
complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. social and compassionate justice.
Nevertheless, the dispositive portion of labor arbiter’s
decision declared: Issue: WON Separation pay is proper.

WHEREFORE, the instant complaint is dismissed for Held:

lack of merit.
We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be
Considering that Dr. Bangayan and Mrs. Martinez are allowed as a measure of social justice only in those
not totally blameless in the light of the fact that the instances where the employee is validly dismissed for
deal happened outhide the premises of respondent causes other than serious misconduct or those
company and that their act of giving P3,800.00 reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason
without any receipt is tantamount to corruption of for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual
public officers, complainant must be given one month intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude,
pay for every year of service as financial assistance. like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker,
the employer may not be required to give the
Both the petitioner and the private respondent dismissed employee separation pay, or financial
appealed to the National Labor Relations Board, assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the
which upheld the said decision in toto and dismissed ground of social justice.
the appeals. The private respondent took no further
action, thereby impliedly accepting the validity of her A contrary rule would, as the petitioner correctly
dismissal. The petitioner, however, is now before us argues, have the effect, of rewarding rather than
to question the affirmance of the above- quoted award punishing the erring employee for his offense. And we
as having been made with grave abuse of discretion. do not agree that the punishment is his dismissal only
and that the separation pay has nothing to do with the
The position of the petitioner is simply stated: It is wrong he has committed. Of course it has. Indeed, if
conceded that an employee illegally dismissed is the employee who steals from the company is granted
entitled to reinstatement and backwages as required separation pay even as he is validly dismissed, it is
by the labor laws. However, an employee dismissed not unlikely that he will commit a similar offense in his
for cause is entitled to neither reinstatement nor next employment because he thinks he can expect a
backwages and is not allowed any relief at all like leniency if he is again found out. This kind of
because his dismissal is in accordance with law. In misplaced compassion is not going to do labor in
the case of the private respondent, she has been general any good as it will encourage the infiltration of
awarded financial assistance equivalent to ten months its ranks by those who do not deserve the protection
pay corresponding to her 10 year service in the and concern of the Constitution.
The policy of social justice is not intended to
countenance wrongdoing simply because it is
committed by the underprivileged. At best it may
mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone
the offense. Compassion for the poor is an imperative
of every humane society but only when the recipient
is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege.
Social justice cannot be permitted to be refuge of
scoundrels any more than can equity be an
impediment to the punishment of the guilty. Those
who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands
are clean and their motives blameless and not simply
because they happen to be poor. This great policy of
our Constitution is not meant for the protection of
those who have proved they are not worthy of it, like
the workers who have tainted the cause of labor with
the blemishes of their own character.

Applying the above considerations, we hold that the

grant of separation pay in the case at bar is
unjustified. The private respondent has been
dismissed for dishonesty, as found by the labor arbiter
and affirmed by the NLRC and as she herself has
impliedly admitted. 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. If regarded
as a justification for moderating the penalty of
dismissal, it will actually become a prize for disloyalty,
perverting the meaning of social justice and
undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of
all undesirables.

Petition granted
 G.R. No. 199890 : August 19, 2013 who is dismissed for just cause may still claim
retirement benefits equally applies to this case. The
JEROME M. DAABAY,Petitioner, v. COCA-COLA SC held in that case that
BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., Respondent.
Private respondent was not separated from
REYES, J.: petitioners employ due to mandatory or optional
retirement but, rather, by termination of employment
FACTS: for a just cause. Thus, any retirement pay provided by
PALs "Special Retirement & Separation Program"
The records indicate that the employment of Daabay dated February 15, 1988 or, in the absence or legal
with Coca-Cola as Sales Logistics Checker was inadequacy thereof, by Article 287 of the Labor Code
terminated by the company in June 2005, following does not operate nor can be made to operate for the
receipt of information from one Cesar Sorin (Sorin) benefit of private respondent. Even private
that Daabay was part of a conspiracy that allowed the respondent's assertion that, at the time of her lawful
pilferage of company property. A formal investigation dismissal, she was already qualified for retirement
on the matter ensued. Eventually, Coca-Cola served does not aid her case because the fact remains that
upon Daabay a Notice of Termination that cited private respondent was already terminated for cause
pilferage, serious misconduct and loss of trust and thereby rendering nugatory any entitlement to
confidence as grounds. At the time of his dismissal, mandatory or optional retirement pay that she might
Daabay had been a regular employee of Coca-Cola have previously possessed.
for eight years, and was receiving a monthly pay of
P20,861.00, exclusive of other benefits. Being intended as a mere measure of equity and
social justice, the NLRC's award was then akin to a
The LA ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed. financial assistance or separation pay that is granted
NLRC reversed the decision, holding that Daabay's to a dismissed employee notwithstanding the legality
participation in the conspiracy was dulu established. of his dismissal. Jurisprudence on such financial
However, NLRC ordered that the case be remanded assistance and separation pay then equally apply to
to the LA for the computation of Daabay's retirement this case. The Court has ruled, time and again, that
benefits. financial assistance, or whatever name it is called, as
a measure of social justice is allowed only in
Coca-Colas partial motion for reconsideration to instances where the employee is validly dismissed for
assail the award of retirement benefits was denied by causes other than serious misconduct or those
the NLRC in a Resolution. The NLRC explained that reflecting on his moral character.
there was a need "to humanize the severe effects of
dismissal"and "tilt the scales of justice in favor of labor Separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of
as a measure of equity and compassionate social social justice only in those instances where the
justice. The CA agreed with the Coca- cola that the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than
award of retirement benefits has no basis. Daabay serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral
moved for reconsideration but the same was denied character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is,
hence, this petition. for example, habitual intoxication or an offense
involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual
ISSUE: Whether or not Daabay may be entitled to relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not
retirement benefits despite his being dismissed be required to give the dismissed employee
legally. separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever
other name it is called, on the ground of social justice.
HELD: No. CA decision affirmed.
A contrary rule would, as the petitioner correctly
Labor Law argues, have the effect of rewarding rather than
punishing the erring employee for his offense. And we
Daabay was declared by the NLRC to have been do not agree that the punishment is his dismissal only
lawfully dismissed by Coca-Cola on the grounds of and that the separation pay has nothing to do with the
serious misconduct, breach of trust and loss of wrong he has committed. Of course it has. Indeed, if
confidence. The pronouncement in Philippine Airlines, the employee who steals from the company is granted
Inc. v. NLRCon the issue of whether an employee separation pay even as he is validly dismissed, it is
not unlikely that he will commit a similar offense in his
next employment because he thinks he can expect a
like leniency if he is again found out. This kind of
misplaced compassion is not going to do labor in
general any good as it will encourage the infiltration of
its ranks by those who do not deserve the protection
and concern of the Constitution. Clearly, considering
that Daabay was dismissed on the grounds of serious
misconduct, breach of trust and loss of confidence,
the award based on equity was unwarranted

DENIED.
 In the case at bar, petitioner paid respondents the
SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. following: (a) separation pay computed at 150% of
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, et their gross monthly pay per year of service; and (b)
al., Respondents. G.R. No. 165951; March 30, cash equivalent of earned and accrued vacation and
2010. sick leaves. Clearly, petitioner had gone over and
above the requirements of the law. Despite this,
FACTS: Sometime in May 2000, petitioner decided to however, petitioner has been ordered to pay
cease its commercial banking operations and respondents an additional amount, equivalent to one
forthwith surrendered to the Bangko Central ng months salary, as a form of financial assistance.
Pilipinas its expanded banking license. For this
reason, petitioner sent individual letters to its After a thorough consideration of the circumstances at
employees, including respondents, advising them of bar, this Court finds that the award of financial
its decision to cease operations and informing them assistance is bereft of legal basis and serves to
that their employment would be terminated. Petitioner penalize petitioner who has complied with the
sent to the Department of Labor and Employment a requirements of the law.
letter informing said office of the termination of its
employees. Moreover, a review of jurisprudence relating to the
application of "compassionate and social justice" in
Petitioner granted to its employees separation pay granting financial assistance in labor cases shows
equivalent to 150% of gross monthly pay per year of that the same has been generally used in instances
service, and cash equivalent of earned and accrued when an employee has been dismissed for a just
vacation and sick leaves as a result of their dismissal. cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code and not
Upon receipt of their separation pay, the employees when an employee has been dismissed for an
of petitioner, including respondents, individually authorized cause under Article 283.
signed a "Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim."
As a general rule, an employee who has been
Thereafter, respondents filed with the Labor Arbiter dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated
(LA) complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of under Article 282 of the Labor Code is not entitled to
separation pay, plus damages and attorneys fees. separation pay. Although by way of exception, the
grant of separation pay or some other financial
The LA ruled that respondents were validly assistance may be allowed to an employee dismissed
terminated. The LA, however, inspired by for just causes on the basis of equity.
compassionate justice, awarded financial assistance
of one months salary to respondents. The NLRC ruled The reason that the law does not statutorily grant
that the closure of a business is an authorized cause separation pay or financial assistance in instances of
sanctioned under Article 283 of the Labor Code and termination due to a just cause is precisely because
one that is ultimately a management prerogative. The the cause for termination is due to the acts of the
NLRC, however, modified the LAs Decision by employee. In such instances, however, this Court,
increasing the amount of financial assistance to two inspired by compassionate and social justice, has in
months salary out of compassionate justice. the past awarded financial assistance to dismissed
employees when circumstances warranted such an
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but the award. Looking now at Article 283, this Court holds
same was denied. Hence, this present petition. that the same was drafted by the legislature, taking
the best interest of laborers in mind. It is clear that the
ISSUE: Was the award of financial assistance valid? causes of the termination of an employee under
Article 283 are due to circumstances beyond their
HELD: Yes. Based on Article 283, in case of control, such as when management decides to reduce
cessation of operations, the employer is only required personnel based on valid grounds, or when the
to pay his employees a separation pay of one month employer decides to cease operations. Thus, the bias
pay or at least one-half month pay for every year of towards labor is very apparent, as the employer is
service, whichever is higher. That is all that the law statutorily required to pay separation pay, the amount
requires. of which is also statutorily prescribed. GRANTED.
 G.R. No. 196201 : June 19, 2012
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: civil service; termination of
FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III, in his capacity as employment
Chairman of the CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Petitioner, v. FLORENTINO VELOSO, Respondent. Dismissal from the service is the prescribed penalty
imposed by Section 52(A)(1), Rule IV of the Uniform
BRION, J.: Rules for the commission of dishonesty even as a first
offense. The aforesaid rule underscores the
FACTS: constitutional principle that public office is a public
trust and only those who can live up to such exacting
Respondent, then District Supervisor of Quedan and standard deserve the honor of continuing in public
Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation (Quedancor), service. It is true that Section 53, Rule IV of the
Cagayan de Oro City, was administratively charged Uniform Rules provides the application of mitigating,
with three (3) counts of dishonesty in connection with aggravating or alternative circumstances in the
his unauthorized withdrawals of money deposited by imposition of administrative penalties. Section 53,
Juanito Quino (complainant), a client of Quedancor. Rule IV applies only when clear proof is shown, using
The complainant applied for a restructuring of his loan the specific standards set by law and jurisprudence,
with Quedancor and deposited the amount of that the facts in a given case justify the mitigation of
P50,000.00 to Quedancors cashier for his Manila the prescribed penalty.
account. In three (3) separate occasions, the
respondent, without notice and authority from the While in most cases, length of service is considered in
complainant and with the assistance of Quedancor's favor of the respondent, it is not considered where the
cashier, managed to withdraw the P50,000.00 offense committed is found to be serious or grave; or
deposit. Upon the discovery of the withdrawals, the when the length of service helped the offender
complainant demanded the return of the money and commit the infraction. The factors against mitigation
called the attention of the manager of Quedancor in are present in this case.
Cagayan de Oro City, who issued to the respondent a
memorandum requiring him to explain the withdrawals The circumstance that this is the respondent's first
and to return the money. administrative offense should not benefit him. By the
express terms of Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform
From the established facts, the respondent was Rules, the commission of an administrative offense
charged by Quedancor with dishonesty, and was classified as a serious offense (like dishonesty) is
subsequently found guilty of the charges and punishable by dismissal from the service even for the
dismissed from the service. The CSC affirmed the first time. In other words, the clear language of
findings and conclusions of Quedancor on appeal. Section 52, Rule IV does not consider a first-time
offender as a mitigating circumstance. Likewise,
Dissatisfied with the adverse rulings of Quedancor under statutory construction principles, a special
and the CSC, the respondent elevated his case to the provision prevails over a general provision. Section
CA which adjudged him guilty of dishonesty, but 53, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules, a general provision
modified the penalty of dismissal to one (1) year relating to the appreciation of mitigating, aggravating
suspension from office without pay. or alternative circumstances, must thus yield to the
provision of Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules
The CSC argues that the CA disregarded the which expressly provides for the penalty of dismissal
applicable law and jurisprudence which penalize the even for the first commission of the offense.
offense of dishonesty with dismissal from the service.
The CSC also argues that there are no mitigating We reject as mitigating circumstances the
circumstances to warrant a reduction of the penalty. respondent's admission of his culpability and the
restitution of the amount. As pointed out by the CSC,
ISSUE: Whether or not dishonesty is the proper the respondent made use of the complainants money
administrative penalty to be imposed on the in 2001 while the restitution was made only in 2003,
respondent during the pendency of the administrative case
against him. Under the circumstances, the restitution
HELD: Court of Appeals decision is reversed and set was half-hearted and was certainly neither purely
aside. voluntary nor made because of the exercise of good
conscience; it was triggered, more than anything else,
by his fear of possible administrative penalties. The
admission of guilt and the restitution effected were
clearly mere afterthoughts made two (2) years after
the commission of the offense and after the
administrative complaint against him was filed. With
these circumstances in mind, we do not find it justified
to relieve the respondent of the full consequences of
his dishonest actions.

Thus, the Constitution stresses that a public office is a

public trust and public officers must at all times be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. These
constitutionally-enshrined principles, oft-repeated in
our case law, are not mere rhetorical flourishes or
idealistic sentiments. They should be taken as
working standards by all in the public service.

GRANTED.
 four days after he ceased to be a probationer. As
G.R. No. L-58639 August 12, 1987 such, he could validly claim the security of tenure
guaranteed to him by the Constitution and the Labor
CEBU ROYAL PLANT (SAN MIGUEL Code.
CORPORATION), vs.
THE HONORABLE DEPUTY MINISTER OF LABOR The petitioner claims it could not have dismissed the
and RAMON PILONES private respondent earlier because the x-ray
examination was made only on August 17, 1978, and
Subject: Labor Standards the results were not immediately available. That
excuse is untenable. We note that when the petitioner
FACTS: had all of six months during which to conduct such
examination, it chose to wait until exactly the last day
Ramon Pilones, private respondent, was employed on of the probation period.
February 16, 1978 on a probationary period of
employment for six (6) months with petitioner CRP. The applicable rule on the ground for dismissal
After said period, he underwent medical examination invoked against him is Section 8, Rule I, Book VI, of
for qualification as a regular employee but the results the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor
showed that he is suffering from PTB minimal. Code which states that “the employer shall not
Consequently, he was informed of the termination of terminate his employment unless there is a
his employment by respondent since his illness was certification by a competent public health authority
not curable within 6 months. that the disease is of such nature or at such a stage
that it cannot be cured within a period of six (6)
Pilones complained against his termination before the months even with proper medical treatment.” The
Ministry of Labor which dismissed the same. The record does not contain the certification required by
dismissal was reversed by the public respondent who the above rule. Hence, dismissal was illegal.
ordered the reinstatement and payment of back
wages. It is also worth noting that the petitioner’s application
for clearance to terminate the employment of the
Granting reinstatement, the public respondent argues private respondent was filed with the Ministry of Labor
that Pilones was already a permanent employee at only on August 28, 1978, or seven days after his
the time of his dismissal and so was entitled to dismissal. As the NLRC has repeatedly and correctly
security of tenure. The alleged ground for his removal, said, the prior clearance rule (which was in force at
to wit, “pulmonary tuberculosis minimal,” was not that time) was not a “trivial technicality.” It required
certified as incurable within six months as to justify his “not just the mere filing of a petition or the mere
separation and that the petitioner should have first attempt to procure a clearance” but that “the said
obtained a clearance, as required by the regulations clearance be obtained prior to the operative act of
then in force, for the termination of his employment. termination.

CRP claims that the private respondent was still on Although we must rule in favor of his reinstatement,
probation at the time of his dismissal and so had no this must be conditioned on his fitness to resume his
security of tenure. The dismissal was necessary for work, as certified by competent authority.
the protection of the public health, as he was handling
ingredients in the processing of soft drinks which were **Another Doctrine under Sec4 of Labor Code on
being sold to the public. construction:

ISSUE: Whether the dismissal was proper. Concern for the lowly worker who, often at the mercy
of his employers, must look up to the law for his
HELD: protection. Fittingly, that law regards him with
tenderness and even favor and always with faith and
No. The dismissal was not proper. Under Article 282 hope in his capacity to help in shaping the nation’s
of the Labor Code, “an employee who is allowed to future. It is an error to take him for granted. He
work after a probationary period shall be considered a deserves our abiding respect. How society treats him
regular employee.” Pilones was already on permanent will determine whether the knife in his hands shall be
status when he was dismissed on August 21, 1978, or a caring tool for beauty and progress or an angry
weapon of defiance and revenge. The choice is
obvious, of course. If we cherish him as we should,
we must resolve to lighten “the weight of centuries” of
exploitation and disdain that bends his back but does
not bow his head.