G.R. No. 178903 , May 30, 2011
JULIET G. APACIBLE, Petitioner, vs. MULTIMED INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED and THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MULTIMED INDUSTRIES, The President MR. JOSELITO TAMBUNTING, Managers MARLENE L. OROZCO, VERONICA C. TIMOG, OLGA F. MARINO and MA. LUZ B. YAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Juliet Apacible was hired in 1994 by respondent Multimed Industries Incorporated and rose to become Assistant Area Sales Manager for Cebu Operations. On August 4, 2003, she was informed by her superior, respondent Marlene Orozco, of her transfer to the company’s main office in Pasig City due to reorganization. Petitioner requested that the transfer be made effective in October or November 2003 to allow for adjustments. However, on August 11, 2003, she was informed the transfer would be effective August 18, 2003. On the same date, she was placed under investigation for a delayed release of BCRs (cash budgets for customer representation). Petitioner admitted the delay was a violation but explained she forgot due to stress over her transfer and had not misappropriated the funds.
Finding the delay amounted to loss of trust and confidence, the company gave her the option to resign. In a meeting on August 23, 2003, with Marlene Orozco and HR Manager Ma. Luz B. Yan (Jig Blanco Yan), petitioner was presented with four options: resignation, termination, an early retirement package, or transfer to Pasig. Without choosing, petitioner took a leave of absence. On September 1, 2003, her counsel sent letters to company officers denouncing the meeting as “illegal” and “inhumane,” demanding separation pay, and advising her to remain in Cebu.
The company sent a memorandum-directive on September 3, 2003, ordering her to report to Pasig and return her company vehicle. Petitioner did not comply, instead filing for sick leave. A subsequent memorandum on October 1, 2003, reiterated the directive, but her counsel again refused, demanding separation pay. On October 6, 2003, petitioner requested her daily work assignment in Cebu, which was denied. She was given a show-cause notice on October 7, 2003, for insubordination. Her counsel maintained she was “not transferring to Manila” and demanded separation pay. The company, by letter of October 14, 2003, denied pressuring her and stressed the transfer was based on business needs without demotion or diminution of benefits.
On November 4, 2003, the company sent a notice of termination effective November 7, 2003, for insubordination. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling dismissal was for just cause (fraud/loss of trust under Article 282). The NLRC affirmed the dismissal but on the ground of insubordination (refusal to obey transfer orders). However, the NLRC granted her separation pay as financial assistance, plus 13th month pay and unpaid salary, noting her refusal was upon counsel’s advice, showing a “modicum of good faith.” The Court of Appeals modified this, ruling she was not entitled to separation pay because she “lacked good faith,” openly defied orders, and her counsel’s letters were insulting and threatening, reflecting a belligerent attitude.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner is entitled to separation pay by way of financial assistance.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that separation pay is not warranted when an employee is dismissed for just cause, such as serious misconduct or willful disobedience. Citing Reno Foods, Inc. v. Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court ruled that financial assistance may be awarded on grounds of equity and social justice only in instances where employees, despite good intentions, violate policies due to harsh realities, but not when the offenses are iniquitous or reflective of depravity in moral character. The Court found petitioner’s acts—open and continual defiance of lawful transfer orders, compounded by insulting and threatening communications from her counsel—to be “highly insolent, impertinent and lacking in good faith.” Such conduct is not deserving of separation pay as it would condone patently illegal or dishonest acts. Therefore, petitioner, having been validly dismissed for just cause, is not entitled to the award of separation pay.