Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
Uploaded by
OroCentral Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
Uploaded by
OroCentral Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. NO.
163561,
July 24, 2007)
Facts
1. Cagampan was the Acting Power Use Coordinator of petitioner Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc.
(CENPELCO)
2. Bonifacio informed CENPELCO that Cagampan received a check for the partial payment made for the
installation of a transformer in her building and expansion of a three-phase line but did not issue a receipt.
3. CENPELCO was directed to explain.
4. Upon investigation, he knowingly entered the contract and was not authorized to received payment.
5. He was dismissed.
6. Cagampan filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
7. Labor arbiter dismissed the complaint but ordered the payment of separation pay.
8. On appeal to NLRC, the labor arbiter was affirmed.
9. CENPELCO filed MR for the award of separation pay but it was dismissed.
10. On appeal to CA, the NLRC was affirmed.
Issue
Should Cagampan receive separation pay?
Held
1. No, Separation pay should not be awarded.
2. Under Labor Code, when the employee is dismissed for any of the just causes under Article 282 of the Labor
Code, he shall not be entitled to termination pay without prejudice to applicable collective bargaining
agreement or voluntary employer policy or practice.
3. Separation pay shall be allowed only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes
other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character.
4. Separation pay in such case is granted to stand as a "measure of social justice."
5. If the cause for the termination of employment cannot be considered as one of mere inefficiency or
incompetence but an act that constitutes an utter disregard for the interest of the employer or a palpable breach
of trust in him, the grant by the Court of separation benefits is hardly justifiable.
6. In this case, private respondent was found by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC to have been validly dismissed
for violations of company rules, and certain acts tantamount to serious misconduct. Such findings, if supported
by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court.
7. Although long years of service might generally be considered for the award of separation benefits or some form
of financial assistance to mitigate the effects of termination, this case is not the appropriate instance for
generosity under the Labor Code nor under our prior decisions. The fact that private respondent served
petitioner for more than twenty years with no negative record prior to his dismissal, in our view of this case,
does not call for such award of benefits, since his violation reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty and worse,
betrayal of the company. If an employee’s length of service is to be regarded as a justification for moderating
the penalty of dismissal, such gesture will actually become a prize for disloyalty, distorting the meaning of
social justice and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of undesirables
