G.R. No. 169712 January 20, 2009
MA. WENELITA S. TIRAZONA, Petitioner, vs. PHILIPPINE EDS TECHNO- SERVICE INC. (PET INC.) AND/OR KEN KUBOTA, MAMORU ONO and JUNICHI HIROSE, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Wenelita S. Tirazona was the Administrative Manager of respondent Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc. (PET), a managerial employee holding a position of trust and confidence. After PET officers called her attention regarding her improper handling of a situation involving a rank-and-file employee, Tirazona claimed she was denied due process and demanded ₱2,000,000.00 indemnity from PET and its officers, threatening a lawsuit if not paid within five days. She also admitted to reading a confidential letter from PET’s counsel to its officers containing a legal opinion on her case. PET terminated her employment on the ground of willful breach of trust and confidence. The Supreme Court, in a Decision dated March 14, 2008, affirmed the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals that her dismissal was valid. Tirazona filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied with finality in a Resolution dated June 23, 2008. She then filed the instant Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration, essentially reiterating her previous arguments and praying, in the alternative, for an award of separation pay and retirement benefits based on her length of service, which she initially claimed was 26 years but later corrected to about 8 years (from July 1999), and which the Court calculated as just over 2 years and 9 months (from July 19, 1999 to her termination on April 22, 2002).

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court should grant petitioner’s Second Motion for Reconsideration and award her separation pay and retirement benefits despite her valid dismissal for loss of trust and confidence.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Motion for Leave to File a Second Motion for Reconsideration and upheld its previous rulings. A second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading under Section 2, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court and shall not be entertained absent extraordinarily persuasive reasons, which were not present. On the merits, the Court held that Tirazona was not entitled to separation pay or retirement benefits. As a general rule, an employee dismissed for a just cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code (such as loss of trust and confidence) is not entitled to separation pay. While equity may allow such an award in some instances, it is not warranted where the dismissal is for serious misconduct or causes reflecting on the employee’s moral character. Tirazona’s actions—her arrogant and hostile stance, unreasonable exorbitant demand for ₱2,000,000.00, refusal to cooperate with the investigation, and breach of confidentiality by reading a legal opinion letter—justified her dismissal for loss of trust and confidence and reflected poorly on her character. Her short length of service (just over 2 years and 9 months) and the circumstances of her case were markedly different from the cited jurisprudence where separation pay was granted on equitable grounds due to long service, absence of a derogatory record, or the disproportionality of the penalty. Therefore, the Court found no basis to award separation pay or retirement benefits.