G.R. No. L-29882. May 26, 1977.
Pedro Horario, petitioner-appellant, vs. Hon. Jose F. Fernandez, in his capacity as Judge, Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. (TASIMICO), respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Pedro Horario worked for Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. from 1919 to 1960, serving as a locomotive fireman for most of his tenure. In 1960, at age 59, he was found by the company physician to be suffering from total blindness in his left eye and progressive blindness in his right eye. Due to this ailment, which rendered him unfit for his duties, the company laid him off on October 1, 1960. Horario filed and won a workmen’s compensation claim, receiving P3,916.64 in benefits in 1965.
Subsequently, in 1967, Horario filed a separate action in the Court of First Instance, claiming separation pay under Republic Act No. 1052 (Termination Pay Law) due to his dismissal without the required advance written notice. He computed his separation pay based on 42 years of service. The trial court denied his claim, reasoning that his layoff due to disability was not a dismissal within the meaning of the Termination Pay Law, analogizing it to a case where death benefits are paid but separation pay is not due.

ISSUE

Whether an employee, who was laid off due to a work-related disability and was awarded workmen’s compensation, is still entitled to claim separation pay under the Termination Pay Law for dismissal without advance notice.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that Horario is not entitled to separation pay. The legal logic is anchored on the exclusivity provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Section 5, Act No. 3428), which states that the rights and remedies granted by the Act to an employee for a personal injury exclude all other rights and remedies accruing under other laws for the same injury. Since Horario’s layoff was directly caused by his disabling eyesight, for which he had already received workmen’s compensation, he is barred from seeking an additional remedy of separation pay under the Termination Pay Law.
The Court clarified that the purpose of the advance notice requirement is to prevent abrupt and arbitrary dismissals, a situation not present here, as Horario’s layoff was necessitated by a known medical condition. However, in the interest of justice and social justice principles, the Court noted that Horario should have received the maximum compensation for total disability (P6,000). Thus, it ordered the company to pay him the deficiency of P2,083.36 (the difference between P6,000 and the amount already paid), plus interest and P600 in attorney’s fees. The decision emphasizes the protective mantle of the law for laborers, stating that “those who have less in life should have more in law,” while ultimately finding his separation pay claim legally unsustainable.