Abandonment

NEECO II vs. NLRC

Facts:NEECO II employed the services of Eduardo Cairlan as driver and assigned him at the petitioner's office at Quezon, Nueva Ecija. Danila dela Cruz, petitioner's general manager terminated the services of respondent Cairlan due to abandonment. According to dela Cruz, never did he see the respondent report for work and worse, it was found in an investigation that respondent Cairlan was actually employed by the Provincial Government as driver allegedly under the assumed name of Eduardo Caimay. Respondent Cairlan then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The LA ruled in favor of respondent. NLRC affirmed. The CA affirmed the decision of the LA and the NLRC.

Issue:WON Cairlan was illegally dismissed.

Held:YES.

Ratio:1. Petitioner miserably failed to establish the fact of

abandonment.Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment; it is a form of neglect of duty hence a just cause for the termination of employment by the employer under Art. 282 of the Labor Code.

2. There was no evidence that Eduardo Cairlan and Eduardo Caimay was one and the same.Evidence consisted of indexes of payments to employees under the name of Eduardo Caimay.

3. Failed to present a bio data which may include a picture of said Caimay.

4. The petitioner's even failed to attach an affidavit of a certain Mr. Marcelo, the person who allegedly conducted the investigation that led to the discovery of Cairlan's double identity.

5. Letter of respondent to petitioner showed his yarning and desire to continue working for petitioner.

Decision: Petition Granted.

NATUREPetition for review

FACTSPetitioner NEECO II staunchly asserts that since its new GM assumed office on 01 March 1995, the GM never saw private respondent Eduardo Cairlan report for work prompting the former to issue a memorandum dated 22 November 1995, which required private respondent to explain in writing why he was not reporting for duty. Private respondent was likewise directed in the said memo to report to its main office at Calipahan, Talavera, Nueva Ecija. For failure of the private respondent to comply with the said memorandum, Mr. dela Cruz directed a certain “Mr. Marcelo” to conduct an investigation on the whereabouts of the petitioner. It was then that NEECO II uncovered that private respondent was at that time already working with the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija as driver allegedly under an assumed name of “Eduardo Caimay.” For these reasons, petitioner contended that it was left with no other alternative but to terminate private respondent’s services.

Petitioner’s GM terminated private respondent’s services on ground of abandonment. Immediately thereafter, private respondent talked with the GM regarding this matter and the latter promised him that the issue would be brought to the attention of NEECO’s Board of Directors for appropriate action. But nothing came out of the GM’s promise prompting private respondent to institute a Complaint for illegal dismissal with

prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages since the NEECO’s Board of Directors did not act upon his termination.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision declaring that private respondent was illegally dismissed on the following grounds: First, petitioner’s assertion that it required private respondent to explain in writing why he was not reporting for duty as driver assigned at Quezon Service Center merited scant consideration since a copy of the alleged memorandum dated 22 November 1995, purportedly as its Annex “A,” was nowhere to be found in the record of the case. Second, petitioner’s contention that private respondent Cairlan was later discovered to be working with the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija under an assumed name of Eduardo Caimay remained unsubstantiated as petitioner failed to adduce independent evidence that said “Eduardo Caimay” and private respondent Eduardo Cairlan are one and the same person. Third, the Labor Arbiter held that the private respondent was denied his right to due process since the letter of termination dated 15 January 1996 stated that said termination is retroactively effected on 1 January 1996. Finally, according to the Labor Arbiter, petitioner failed to corroborate its claim that private respondent was guilty of dereliction of duty.

Public respondent NLRC dismissed for lack of merit. The NLRC affirmed in toto the decision of Labor Arbiter. Hence this petition.

ISSUES1. WON petitioner was accorded due process2. WON petitioner is guilty of illegally dismissing private respondent

HELD1. YESRatioThe rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively and without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.

Reasoning The Labor Arbiter shall motu proprio determine whether there is need for a formal trial or hearing.

Under Section 4, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the Labor Arbiter is given the latitude to determine the necessity for a formal hearing or investigation, once the position papers and other documentary evidence of the parties have been submitted before him. The parties may ask for a hearing but such hearing is not a matter of right of the parties. The Labor Arbiter, in the exercise of his discretion, may deny such request and proceed to decide the case on the basis of the position papers and other documents brought before him without resorting to technical rules of evidence as observed in regular courts of justice.

In the present case, a scrupulous study of the records reveals that the Labor Arbiter did not abuse his discretion conferred upon him by the Rules in not conducting a formal hearing. On this, the findings of the Court of Appeals, consistent with that of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, ought to be sustained.

2. YESRatio: Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment; it is a form of neglect of duty; hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer under Article 282 of the Labor Code, which enumerates the just causes for termination by the employer: i.e., (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or the latter’s representative in connection with the employee’s work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the

employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or his duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) other analogous causes.

Reasoning Private respondent’s alleged abandonment of work through his employment with the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija was not clearly established and proven. The evidence submitted by petitioner to buttress its allegation that private respondent abandoned his work consists merely of indexes of payments to employees under the name Eduardo Caimay without any further evidence showing that Eduardo Caimay and private respondent Eduardo Cairlan is one and the same person. The best evidence that could have established the allegation that Eduardo Caimay and private respondent Eduardo Cairlan is one and the same person is Eduardo Caimay’s Personal Data Sheet which definitely would have the pertinent personal information about him and a picture that would identify him and not a testimony of a representative from the Provincial Government of Nueva Ecija, as adverted to by petitioner to justify its motion for a trial type hearing.

Worse, private respondent received his notice of termination only on 15 January 1996 which termination is effective as early as 01 January 1996, all in gross violation of the requirements provided for by law.

Further negating petitioner’s contention of abandonment, as noted by the Labor Arbiter, is private respondent’s letter dated 04 March 1996 addressed to Mr. Danilo dela Cruz reiterating the former’s plea for reconsideration of his dismissal. This letter depicts private respondent’s fervor and yearning to continue working with petitioner – the very antithesis of abandonment

Disposition AFFIRMED.

Northwest Tourism Corp. vs CA

Facts:

Petitioner owns and operates Asiaworld resort hotel in Palawan. Respondent Oclarit was hired by petitioner as an outlet cashier and was later promoted night auditor of Asiaworld Hotel. An incident occurred involving several guests wherein they claimed that Oclarit pocketed the excess of their cash deposits and surreptitiously made on of them, a certain Roque, to sign a paid out voucher. Management then conducted an investigation and issued a memorandum effectively placing Oclarit under preventive suspension for thirty days. The House detective then conducted an investigation and it was concluded that Oclarit indeed pocketed the excess cash deposit. Northwest even alleged that at the end of the preventive suspension Oclarit refused to return to work hence they terminated his employment due to abandonment. Oclarit on the other hand claimed that he reported for duty after the suspension but was told by the Personnel Manager that he should resign or else he shall be terminated with a bad record. Oclarit refused to sign. A memorandum was then issued terminating the services of Oclarit and citing dishonesty and abandonment as the bases for his termination. Oclarit then filed a case for illegal dismissal. LA dismissed the case. NLRC reversed and declared that Oclarit was illegally dismissed. CA modified the decision of the NLRC by absolving several of managers.

Issue:WON Oclarit's termination was valid on the ground of abandonment.

Held:NO.

Ratio:

1. In order to constitute abandonment of work, two elements must concur: a. employee must have failed to report for work or must

have been absent without valid or justifiable reasons. b. there must have been a clear intention on the part of

the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act.

The employer has the burden of proof to show the employer's deliberate and unjustified refusal to resume his employment without any intention of returning. Mere absence is not sufficient.

2. The record shows that Oclarit did have the intent to return from work when he went to see the Personnel Management.

3. However, he was prevented from returning from work because he was told to resign otherwise he would be terminated with a bad record.

4. Petitioner failed to produce facts of overt acts of Oclarit showing his clear intention to abandon his work.

5. Filing of complaint for illegal dismissal by Oclarit is proof that he did not have any intention to abandon his work.

Decision: Judgment affirmed with modification.

Big AA Manufacturer vs. Antonio

Facts:Respondents filed a complaint against Petitioner Corporation for illegal lay-offs and illegal deductions. Since the mandatory amicable settlement failed, the parties were required to submit their position papers. Respondents allege that they were hired by petitioner in as carpenters and that they were the regular employees of the petitioner, they were allowed by the petitioner to use its equipment and tools for their jobs. Big AA on the other hand claimed that they were merely independent contractors and that contrary to the claim of respondents, they (respondents) refused a job order hence, their contractual relationship ended. LA ruled in favor of respondents. NLRC modified the decision of the LA but in sum affirmed the decision.

Issue:WON respondents abandoned their work

Held:NO

Ratio:1. For accusing respondents of abandonment, petitioner

must show the elements of abandonment:a. Respondent's failure to report for work or absence

without a valid reason.b. Respondent’s clear intention to sever employer-

employee relations as manifested by some overt acts. (2nd Element is the more determining factor)

2. Petitioner’s argument that the reason for respondent’s abandonment is their resentment over the implementation of the implementing guidelines is bereft of merit. It cannot serve as a basis for saying that they had the intention of abandoning their work.

3. Furthermore, their filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal within 2 days after their dismissal and seeking for their reinstatement in their position paper runs counter to their theory.It is said that an employee who forthwith protests his layoff cannot be said to have abandoned their work.

Petition Denied

NATUREPetition for review on certiorari of a decision of CA

FACTS- Petitioner Big AA Manufacturer is a sole proprietorship registered in the name of its proprietor, Enrico E. Alejo. Respondents filed a complaint for illegal lay-off and illegal deductions

- Respondents> That as regular employees, they worked from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at petitioner’s premises using petitioner’s tools and equipment and they received P250 per day. Eutiquio was employed as carpenter-foreman from 1991-99; Jay as carpenter from 1993-99; Felicisimo as carpenter from 1994-99; and Leonardo, Sr. also as carpenter from 1997-99; That they were dismissed without just cause and due process; hence, their prayer for reinstatement and full backwages. - Petitioner Big AA Manufacturer> That it is a sole proprietorship registered in the name of Enrico Alejo and engaged in manufacturing office furniture, but it denied that respondents were its regular employees. It claimed that Eutiquio Antonio was one of its independent contractors who used the services of the other respondents. It said that its independent contractors were paid by results and were responsible for the salaries of their own workers. Allegedly, there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioner and respondents. But it allowed respondents to use its facilities to meet job orders. It also denied that respondents were laid-off by Big AA Manufacturer, since they were project employees only. It added that since Eutiquio Antonio had refused a job order of office tables, their contractual relationship ended. - Labor Arbiter ruled againstpetitioners. Both appealed to NLRC. Respondents appealed for not ordering their reinstatement to their former positions. The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision. It ordered petitioner to reinstate respondents to their former positions or to pay them separation pay in case reinstatement was no longer feasible, with full backwages in either case. The NLRC ruled that respondents were regular employees, not independent contractors. It further held that petitioner failed to justify its reason for terminating respondents and its failure to comply with the due process requirements. CA affirmed NLRC ruling.

ISSUES WON respondents were illegally dismissed

HELDYES- The consistent rule is that the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause, failing in which would make the termination illegal, as in this case. - Contrary to petitioner’s claim of abandonment as a valid just cause for termination, herein respondents did not abandon their work. Petitioner failed to prove that (1) not only of respondents’ failure to report for work or absence without valid reason, but (2) also of respondents’ clear intention to sever employer-employee relations as manifested by some overt acts.- By filing the complaint for illegal dismissal within two days of their dismissal and by seeking reinstatement in their position paper, respondents manifested their intention against severing their employment relationship with petitioner and abandoning their jobs. It is settled that an employee who forthwith protests his layoff cannot be said to have abandoned his workDisposition Petition denied.

Respondents’ overt acts did not indicate abandonment. (No clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship). Their filing of an illegal dismissal charge was inconsistent with abandonment. (Cebu Marine Beach Resort vs. NLRC)

"for abandonment of work to exist, it is essential (1)that the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) that there must have been a clear intention to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt acts. Deliberate and unjustified refusal on the part of the employee to go back to his work post and resume his employment must be established. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee simply does not want to work anymore. And the burden of proof to show

that there was unjustified refusal to go back to work rests on the employer."(Samarca v. Arc-Men Industries)

The following circumstances proved that respondent has an intention to sever ties with petitioners:1. He bragged to his co-workers about his plan to quit his

job. 2. He surrendered his shop keys. 3. He failed to report without giving valid reasons. 4. He immediately got regular employment in another

barber shop. 5. He filed for illegal dismissal without praying for

reinstatement. (Paz Martia Jo v. NLRC)

Courtesy Resignation

Resignation per se means voluntary relinquishment of a position or office. Adding the word courtesy did not change the essence of resignation. That courtesy resignations were utilized in government reorganization did not give private respondent the right to use it as well in its own reorganization and rehabilitation plan. There is no guarantee that organization will not use it to rid themselves arbitrarily of employees they do not like, in the guise of “streamlining” its organization. (Batongbacal v. Associated Bank)

FACTS- Bienvenido Batongbacal, a lawyer, worked for Citizens Bank and Trust Company from 1961. On 1975, Citizens Bank and Trust Company merged with the Associated Banking Corporation. The merged corporate entity later became known as Associated Bank. In the new bank, petitioner resumed his position as assistant vice-president.- On March 1982, he learned that his salary was very much below compared to the other Asst. VPs of the bank. He wrote to the Board of Directors asking that he be paid the proper amount. Apparently, said letter fell on deaf ears.- On March 15, 1982, the board approved the following resolution: “BE IT RESOLVED that the new management be given the necessary flexibility in streamlining the operations of the Bank and for the purpose it is hereby resolved that the Bank officers at the Head Office and the Branches with corporate rank of Manager and higher be required, as they hereby are required to submit IMMEDIATELY to the President their courtesy resignations.”- Petitioner did not submit his courtesy resignation. On May 3, 1983, he received a letter from the Board saying that his resignation has been accepted. Petitioner wrote to the executive VP asking for reconsideration. He stated therein that he thought the call for the submission of courtesy resignations was only for erring "loathsome" officers and not those like him who had served the bank honestly and sincerely for sixteen years. - Starting May 4, 1983, he was not paid. He filed for illegal dismissal and damages with the NLRC. The NLRC ruled in favor of the petitioner. On MFR, the NLRC reversed.

ISSUEWON the bank may legally dismiss for refusal to tender the courtesy resignation which the bank required in line with its reorganization plan

HELDNO- While it may be said that the private respondent's call for courtesy resignations was prompted by its determination to survive, we cannot lend legality to the manner by which it pursued its goalBy directing its employees to submit letters of courtesy resignation, the bank in effect forced upon its employees an act which they themselves should voluntarily do. It should be emphasized that resignation per se means voluntary relinquishment of a position or office. 11 Adding the word "courtesy" did not change the essence of resignation. That courtesy resignations were utilized in government reorganization did not give private respondent the right to use

it as well in its own reorganization and rehabilitation plan. There is no guarantee that all employers will not use it to rid themselves arbitrarily of employees they do not like, in the guise of "streamlining" its organization. On the other hand, employees would be unduly exposed to outright termination of employment which is anathema to the constitutional mandate of security of tenure- The record fails to show any valid reasons for terminating the employment of petitioner. There are no proofs of malfeasance or misfeasance committed by petitioner which jeopardized private respondent's interest.- However, we agree with the Solicitor General and the NLRC that petitioner is not entitled to an award of the difference between his actual salary and that received by the assistant vice-president who had been given the salary next higher to his. There is a semblance of discrimination in this aspect of the bank's organizational set-up but we are not prepared to preempt the employer's prerogative to grant salary increases to its employees. In this connection, we may point out that private respondent's claim that it needed to trim down its employees as a self-preservation measure is belied by the amount of salaries it was giving its other assistant vice-presidentsDisposition Remanded to the NLRC to determine WON the petitioner is a managerial employee

Change of OwnershipA business merger is allowed by law. This however should not be used to permit the employer to escape payment of termination pay. Such a situation is not envisioned in the law, for it strikes at the very heart of social justice. The rule laid out is that an innocent transferee of a business establishment has no liability to the employees of the transferor to continue employing them. Nor is the transferee liable for past unfair labor practices of the previous owner, except, when the liability therefore is assumed by the new employer under the terms of the contract of sale, or when the liability attaches since owner was part of the plan to thwart the rights of the employees. (Manlimos v. NLRC)

Habitual Absenteeism

The service record of private respondent with petitioner is perpetually characterized by unexplained absences and unauthorized sick leave extensions. The nature of his job as lineman-driver requires his physical presence to minister to incessant complaints often faulted with electricity, habitual absenteeism of an errant employee is not concordant with the public service that petitioner has to assiduously provide. Therefore, his continual incurrence of absences rendered his dismissal proper. (Manila Electric Co. v. NLRC).

Nowhere in our jurisprudence requires that all medical certificates be notarized to be accepted as valid evidence. In this case, there is [neither] difficulty nor an obstacle to claim that the medical certificates presented by complainant are genuine and authentic. While it is true that the petitioner had objected to the veracity of the medical certificates because of lack of notarization, it has been said that verification of documents is not necessary in order that the said documents could be considered as substantial evidence. The medical certificates were properly signed by the physicians; hence, they bear all the earmarks of regularity in their issuance and are entitled to full probative weight. The respondent did not incur any intermittent absences. His only recorded absence was the consecutive ten-day unauthorized absence, albeit due to painful and unbearable toothache. The petitioner’s claim that the respondent had manifested poor work attitude was belied by its own recognition of the respondent’s dedication to his job as evidenced by the latter’s awards. (Union Motor Corp v. NLRC)

Fixed-Term Employment

The court has repeatedly upheld the validity of fixed-term employment provided that a.) fixed period of unemployment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties,

without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, and b) it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employees dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former on the latter. The employment contracts entered into satisfied all these requirements. However, the dismissal is illegal because the employment contract stipulates that the liquidator has the right to terminate them any time during this period of temporary employment if they are found inefficient in the job or violated any rules. (Mendenilla v. PNB)

The non-renewal of an employment contract with a term is ordinarily a valid mode of removal at the end of each period. This rule, however, must yield to the superior constitutional right of employees, permanent or temporary, to self-organization. While a temporary empoloyment may be ended with or without cause, it certainly may not, however, be terminated for an illegal cause. (Pamantasan v. Civil Service Commission)

Past Offenses

Dismissal on the basis of loss of trust and confidence calls for substantial evidence, or the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept to justify a conclusion. It does not demand proof beyond reasonable doubt of the employee’s misconduct. The panel used all the evidence available to them and thus cannot be faulted. Furthermore, the decision of acquittal was rendered after the panel issued its pronouncement. This, plus the fact that petitioner is estopped since she agreed to subject herself to the voluntary arbitrators thru the compromise agreement justifies the termination. (Ramoran v. Jardine CMG)

Previous offenses may be used as valid justification for dismissal from work only if the infractions are related to the subsequent offense upon which basis the termination of employment is decreed. The previous infraction may be used if it has a bearing to the proximate offense warranting the dismissal. (LaCarlota Planters Assoc v. NLRC)

Habitual Infractions

“It is the employer's prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business or concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same be complied with. At the same time, it is one of the fundamental duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the employer, and willful or intentional disobedience thereof, as a general rule, justifies rescission of the contract of service and the preemptory dismissal of the employee." (Citing Family Planning Organization of the Philippines, Inc. vs. .NLRC) Records show the various violations of respondent company’s rules and regulations committed by petitioner. His dismissal from the service is, therefore, in order. Indeed, in Piedad vs. Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc., we ruled that a series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct, which under Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, is a just cause for dismissal. (Gustilo v.Wyeth Phil, Inc)

Gustilo was employed by Wyeth Phils Inc. as a pharmaceutical territory manager.- He was in-charge of the various branches in Metro Bacolod City and Negros Occidental. - Among his tasks were visiting hospitals, pharmacies, drugstores and physicians; preparing and submitting his pre-dated itinerary; and submitting periodic reports of his daily call visits, monthly itinerary and weekly locator and incurred expenses.- His employment records show that on various dates, Wyeth reprimanded and suspended him for habitually neglecting to submit his periodic reports.

> Nov. 28, 1994- W sent a notice reprimanding G for the late submission of weekly expense report> July 5, 1995- late submission of same report so W suspended him for 5 days> Oct 16 to 20, 23-27, Nov 6-10, 13-17, (all 1995)- late submission of his daily call reports> Nov 20-24, 1995- didn’t submit his daily call reports so W suspended him for 15 days.- Wyeth put Gustilo in charge of promoting 4 Lederle (W’s sister company) pharmaceutical products. G then submitted to W a plan of action where G committed to make an ave of 18 daily calls to physicians; submit promptly all periodic reports; and ensure 95% territory program performance for every cycle. - Gustilo failed to achieve his objectives so W sent him 2 notices charging him with willful violation of company rules and regulations and directed him to submit a written explanation.- G explained that he was overworked and an object of reprisal by his immediate supervisor, Filemon Verzano Jr.- Wyeth, upon the recommendation of a review panel, terminated Gustilo’s services.- G then filed with the Regional Arbiter Br. No. 6 in Bacolod City a complaint against W for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal and payment for allowances, other monetary benefits, damages and atty’s fees.- The Labor Arbiter found that G was illegally dismissed from employment and ordered W and Verzano to pay G jointly and severally Php 991,157.90 representing backwages, separation pay, car reimbursement, damages and atty’s fees.- W appealed to the NLRC in Cebu City- NLRC- affirmed but modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision- ordered reinstatement of G, or in lieu of reinstatement, pay his separation benefits.- W’s MR was denied so they filed with the CA a petition for Certiorari and TRO and a writ of preliminary injunction.- CA- reversed NLRC’s decision and dismissed G’s complaint for illegal dismissal (as G was terminated based on A282 of the LC-gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties) but awarded him separation pay considering the “mitigating factors” of length of service, loyalty awards G received and Verzano’s grudge against G.- G filed an MR but was denied.

ISSUEWON GUSTILO is entitled to his separation pay

HELDNO, Gustilo isn’t entitled to his SP OR to reinstatement as there was a just cause for dismissal.Reasoning- Phil Journalists Inc v Mosqueda- SC ruled that the findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court- Family Planning Org of the Phils Inc v NLRC – SC held that “it is the employer’s prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business or concern to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same be complied with. At the same time, it is one of the fundamental duties of the employee to yield obedience to all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the employer, and willful or intentional disobedience thereof, as a general rule, justifies rescission of the contract of service and the preemptory dismissal of the employee."- Piedad v Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc.- a series of irregularities when put together may constitute serious misconduct, which under A282 of the LC, as amended, is a just cause for dismissal.- The rule embodied in the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code is that a person dismissed for cause as defined therein is not entitled to separation pay.- PLDT v NLRC and Abucay, -"x x x henceforth, separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where

the reason for the valid dismissal is, x x x an offense involving moral turpitude x x x, 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." - Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union-FFW v Court of Appeals-“We are of course aware that financial assistance may be allowed as a measure of social justice in exceptional circumstances and as an equitable concession. We are likewise mindful that financial assistance is allowed only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character (Zenco Sales, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 234 SCRA 689). x x x." - In the case at bar, there is NO exceptional circumstances to warrant the grant of financial assistance or separation pay to petitioner. G did not only violate company disciplinary rules and regulations. He falsified his employment application form by not stating therein that he is the nephew of Mr. Danao, respondent Wyeth’s Nutritional Territory Manager. - G manifested his slack of moral principle through his infractions. In simple term, he is dishonest.- Philippine Long Distance Telephone vs. NLRC and Abucay- [T]hose who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands are clean and their motives blameless x x x." Here, petitioner failed to measure up to such requirement.

Disposition Petition is DENIED***Wyeth did not interpose an appeal to this Court. Hence, no affirmative relief can be extended to it. So it has to comply with the CA’s decision to grant G his SP.

Immorality

The Manual of regulation for private Schools provides that in addition to the just causes enumerated in the LC, the employment of school personnel, including faculty, may be terminated for, inter alia, disgraceful or immoral conduct.

Immorality under American Jurisprudence is defined as a course of conduct which offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals as a teacher is supposed to foster and to elevate, the same including sexual misconduct. (Santos vs. NLRC)