G.R. No. 164016 March 15, 2010
RENO FOODS, INC., and/or VICENTE KHU, Petitioners, vs. NAGKAKAISANG LAKAS NG MANGGAGAWA (NLM) – KATIPUNAN on behalf of its member, NENITA CAPOR, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Reno Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer of canned meat products, with Vicente Khu as its president. Respondent Nenita Capor was an employee until her dismissal on October 27, 1998. On October 19, 1998, during a standard company search procedure, a guard found six Reno canned goods inside Capor’s fabric clutch bag. Petitioners accorded Capor several opportunities to explain, including a labor-management grievance conference, but ultimately terminated her employment. Petitioners also filed a criminal complaint for qualified theft against Capor, where the City Prosecutor found probable cause and an Information was filed. Meanwhile, the union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims on Capor’s behalf. The Labor Arbiter found Capor guilty of serious misconduct (theft of company property) and ruled her dismissal valid, denying all monetary claims. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the factual findings but modified the decision by granting financial assistance equivalent to one-half month pay for every year of service. Both parties moved for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the NLRC’s award of financial assistance. During the CA proceedings, Capor filed a Manifestation informing the court of her acquittal in the criminal case for qualified theft on the ground of reasonable doubt. The CA was unimpressed by petitioners’ argument that theft precludes financial assistance, stressing the laborer’s welfare as paramount. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting financial assistance to an employee who was validly dismissed for theft of company property.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The award of financial assistance (separation pay) to Capor was not warranted. The Court held that conviction in a criminal case is not necessary to find just cause for termination of employment. Capor’s acquittal in the criminal case was based on reasonable doubt, which is a different standard from the substantial evidence required in labor cases. The Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA all found substantial evidence to conclude Capor was validly dismissed for dishonesty or serious misconduct. The Court found no compelling reason to overturn these factual findings. On the award of separation pay, the Court ruled it was a deviation from established law and jurisprudence. Separation pay is only warranted when the cause for termination is not attributable to the employee’s fault, such as in cases of retrenchment, closure, or disease. Theft of company property is a form of serious misconduct or willful breach of trust under Article 282 of the Labor Code, for which no financial assistance should be allowed. Citing precedent, the Court emphasized that social justice and equity are not meant to coddle those unworthy of such consideration, and there is no legal or equitable justification for awarding financial assistance to an employee dismissed for stealing company property. The Court reversed the CA Decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s Decision dated November 16, 1999, which found the dismissal valid and awarded no monetary claims.