G.R. No. 83513. April 18, 1989.
LEONCITO PACAÑA, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE PACKING CORPORATION, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Leoncito Pacaña, a security guard with eighteen years of service at Philippine Packing Corporation (PPC), was implicated in the theft of legramoxone chemicals from the company plant in July 1986. A minor caught in the act named Pacaña as the one who asked him to remove the chemicals. Another guard executed an affidavit stating he saw Pacaña carrying the chemical. During the company investigation, Pacaña admitted his guilt in writing, citing pity and being “beguiled by caresses” as his motives, begged for forgiveness, and requested a transfer. A criminal complaint for qualified theft was initially filed but later withdrawn after Pacaña, in a letter, admitted the theft and requested to resign without pay in exchange for dropping the charge.
The prosecution was revived after Pacaña’s counsel demanded his reinstatement with backpay, arguing his suspension had lapsed. On the same day the refiled information was lodged in court, Pacaña filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Pacaña’s favor, ordering reinstatement with back wages or separation pay. PPC appealed to the NLRC. Pacaña moved for execution, claiming the decision was final, while PPC contended its appeal was timely.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in accepting PPC’s appeal as timely filed; and (2) whether the NLRC correctly reversed the Labor Arbiter by finding Pacaña’s dismissal legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the NLRC’s decision. On the procedural issue, the Court held the appeal was seasonably filed. While the reglementary period is ten calendar days, the tenth day fell on a Saturday when NLRC offices were closed, and the next day was a Sunday. The appeal filed on the immediately following Monday, the earliest possible business day, was therefore timely.
On the substantive issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC’s finding of a valid dismissal. The NLRC’s conclusion was supported by substantial evidence, primarily Pacaña’s own written admissions of guilt made during the investigation and in his subsequent letter offering to resign. The Court rejected Pacaña’s belated claim that his confessions were coerced, as he provided no credible evidence to substantiate this allegation. The sequence of events, wherein the criminal charge was withdrawn following his admission and reinstated only after his counsel’s demand, corroborated the voluntariness and truthfulness of his confessions.
Furthermore, the Court upheld the denial of separation pay. Citing precedent, it ruled that social justice does not compel the grant of separation pay to an employee validly dismissed for serious misconduct involving moral turpitude, such as theft. For a security guard, whose position demands utmost integrity, an act of dishonesty is a fundamental breach of trust. Awarding separation pay under such circumstances would unjustly reward wrongdoing and undermine disciplinary standards. The policy of social justice is not a sanctuary for wrongdoing, even for a long-term employee.