G.R. No. 171023 December 18, 2009
Arsenio S. Quiambao, Petitioner, vs. Manila Electric Company, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Arsenio S. Quiambao was employed as a branch teller by respondent Manila Electric Company (MERALCO) on July 16, 1986. His employment records showed repeated violations of the Company Code of Employee Discipline and poor performance ratings from 1995 to 1999, including infractions for excessive absences, excessive tardiness, and assaulting others. On March 10, 2000, he was served a Notice of Investigation for numerous unauthorized and unexcused absences. He did not participate in the investigation. Consequently, he was dismissed effective March 29, 2000, on the grounds of abandonment of work and gross and habitual neglect of duty. Petitioner filed a complaint challenging the legality of his dismissal. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling the dismissal was valid. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the legality of the dismissal but awarded separation pay of ₱126,875.00, citing the case of Philippine Geothermal, Inc. v. NLRC. The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC’s award of separation pay and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ruling the award was without factual and legal basis and that petitioner’s actions constituted serious misconduct.

ISSUE

Whether or not a validly dismissed employee may be entitled to separation pay.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court upheld the findings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA that petitioner was guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duty. It further agreed with the CA that petitioner’s habitual unauthorized absences, committed willfully and without valid justification despite prior penalties, constituted serious misconduct, indicative of wrongful intent and utter disregard for his work and employer’s interest. Citing Central Philippines Bandag Retreaders, Inc. v. Diasnes, the Court ruled that separation pay as financial assistance is not warranted when dismissal is based on serious misconduct or willful disobedience; gross and habitual neglect of duty; fraud or willful breach of trust; or commission of a crime against the employer or his immediate family—grounds under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The constitutional policy to provide full protection to labor does not justify awarding separation pay to employees whose dismissals are for just causes reflecting their perversity or depravity.