GR 117055; (March, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117055 March 29, 1996
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. QUINTIN B. CUETO III and VIRGILIO TORRES, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Virgilio Torres was employed by petitioner San Miguel Corporation (SMC) as a Route Salesman. Having been found guilty of multiple misappropriation of company funds amounting to P12,898.00 and of borrowing money and merchandise from customers, he was dismissed effective July 15, 1988. Torres filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled that the dismissal was valid for just cause and with due process. However, invoking “fairness, equity, humanitarian consideration and compassion,” the Arbiter ordered SMC to grant Torres “the privilege to retire… with the availment of 100% benefits as practiced by the company.” The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Is an employee validly dismissed for cause entitled to retirement benefits on grounds of equity and compassion?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court modified the assailed Resolutions and Decision by deleting the award of retirement benefits. The Court affirmed that Torres’s dismissal was legal, having been grounded on serious misconduct involving misappropriation of company funds and performed with due process. The legal logic is clear: while compassion and social justice are guiding principles in labor cases, they cannot be used to reward an employee guilty of a serious offense that breaches the trust of the employer. Retirement benefits are a form of reward for faithful and satisfactory service. To grant such benefits to an employee dismissed for dishonesty would be antithetical to the purpose of the benefit and would condone the misconduct.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the Labor Arbiter’s basis that the award stemmed from a prior company offer. The record showed SMC had offered financial assistance to avoid litigation, which Torres rejected. The policy of the law encourages compromises, but an offer made to buy peace cannot be enforced against the offeror after the offeree has litigated and lost. To allow Torres to claim the benefits after spurning the offer and losing the case would be unjust. Equity must be balanced with law; it cannot be a tool for injustice.