7/30/2019 Sampaguita+Garments+Corp+v+NLRC+ +Digest

1/2

Sampaguita Garments Corp. v NLRC

June 17, 1994

Cruz, J.

Facts

Emilia Santos tried to bring out of company premises, without permission, a pieceof cloth belonging to her employer, Sampaguita Garments Corp.

Sampaguita dismissed her because of this so she filed a complaint for illegal

dismissal LA sustained the Sampaguita

NLRC however, reversed the LA and ordered her reinstatement with back wages.

Meantime, Sampaguita also filed a criminal action against Santos for the same

offense.

MTC found her guilty of theft, which was affirmed by the RTC.

On appeal, Supreme Court, in separate decisions:

Affirmed the NLRC decision in the illegal dismissal case.

Affirmed the MTC decision in the criminal case for theft. The decisions in both cases thus became final and executory and the

corresponding entries of judgment were eventually made.

Subsequently, Santos moved for the execution of the NLRC decision.

Sampaguita opposed, invoking her conviction in the criminal case.

NLRC sustained Santos on the ground that its decision, which was affirmed by

the Supreme Court, had long become final and executory.

Issues

WON the NLRC decision ordering Santos reinstatement should be enforced. NO

Sampaguita: In view of the private respondents conviction for theft, the decision

of the NLRC should not be enforced because to do so would in effect be

rewarding Santos when she should instead be punished for her offense. Santos: The decision of the NLRC is independent of the criminal case and can no

longer be modified or reversed after having become final and executory.

Ratio

Heirs of Francisco Guballa, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals: The power of the NLRC

to issue a writ of execution carries with it the right to look into the

correctness of the execution of the decision and to consider supervening

events that may affect such execution.

In this case, NLRC should exercise its authority and suspend the writ of execution

because Santos conviction for theft is a supervening cause that rendered unjust

and inequitable the NLRC decision.

The Solicitor Generals opinion that separation pay should be given to Santos in

lieu of reinstatement, the latter being no longer feasible in view of Santos

subsequent conviction for theft and the already strained relationship between her

and Sampaguita, is untenable.

Award of separation pay is not justifiable because Santos was found guilty of

a crime involving moral turpitude and so is disqualified from this benefit.

7/30/2019 Sampaguita+Garments+Corp+v+NLRC+ +Digest

2/2

PLDT v. NLRC: xxx Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example,

habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft xxx the

employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, orfinancial assistance xxx on the ground of social justice. A contrary rule would, as

the petitioner correctly argues, have the effect of rewarding rather than punishing

the erring employee for his offense. xxx This kind of misplaced compassion is notgoing 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.

The same rationale exists for not enforcing the respondent NLRCs award of back

wages.

However, while Santos conviction for theft removed the justification for the

NLRC decision, nevertheless, Sampaguita should still have accorded her an

administrative investigation in conformity with the procedural requirements

of due process. Its failure to do so in this case renders it liable to Santos for the

sanction mentioned in Wenphil Corporation v. NLRC: The only award to which

the private respondent may be entitled is for the amount of P1,000.00, to be paidto her by the petitioner as a penalty for effecting her dismissal without complying

with the procedural requirements laid down in Sections 2 and 5 of Rule XIV,

Book V, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.