GR 128345; (May, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 128345 May 18, 1999
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROLANDO S. ANGELES and RICARDO P. PABLO, JR., respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Rolando S. Angeles and Ricardo P. Pablo, Jr. were tollway guards employed by petitioner Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC). Following a complaint about mulcting activities, PNCC staged an entrapment operation on September 11, 1993. Marked money and a dog were given to a complainant, who was instructed to offer them if demanded. The investigating team witnessed private respondents accept the marked cash and the dog from a motorist before allowing the vehicle to pass. They were subsequently accosted, and the marked bills were recovered. After formal investigation, they were dismissed for serious misconduct.
Private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal illegal due to insufficient evidence but awarded separation pay due to strained relations, plus backwages and a mid-year bonus. On appeal, the NLRC modified the decision. It held the dismissal was valid for serious misconduct (bribery) but, on grounds of equity, still awarded separation pay and the mid-year bonus. PNCC filed this certiorari petition, contesting the award of separation pay and bonus despite the finding of a valid dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding separation pay and a mid-year bonus to employees who were validly dismissed for just cause.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NLRC’s award. The legal logic is clear and twofold. First, separation pay is not warranted in cases of dismissal for just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code, such as the serious misconduct (bribery) committed here. The grant of separation pay as a measure of “social justice” or “equity” is permissible only in instances of termination due to authorized causes under Article 283 (e.g., retrenchment) or in cases of illegal dismissal where reinstatement is not feasible. Where an employee is validly dismissed for a fault so grave as bribery, which amounts to a betrayal of trust, no separation pay shall be awarded as it would condone the wrongdoing and be antithetical to public policy.
Second, a bonus is generally a gratuity or an act of liberality on the part of the employer, not a demandable right, unless it has become part of the wage or compensation by voluntary practice or agreement. Private respondents failed to prove that the mid-year bonus was a regular, contractual obligation forming part of their wage. As employees validly dismissed for cause, they are not entitled to such a discretionary benefit. The NLRC’s decision to grant these benefits constituted a whimsical and capricious exercise of judgment, amounting to grave abuse of discretion correctible by certiorari.