GR L 54280; (September, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-54280 September 30, 1982
ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND OPEGINIO ABREU, SR., respondents.
FACTS
Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. filed an application to terminate Opeginio Abreu, Sr., a miner, on the ground of “highgrading” or theft of high-grade ore, placing him under preventive suspension. The Labor Arbiter denied the application, finding the charge insufficiently supported by evidence, and ordered Abreu’s reinstatement with full back wages. On appeal by the company, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s findings. The NLRC held that Abreu’s breach of trust was sufficiently established, as he was apprehended in an unauthorized area during a meal break, justifying the severance of his employment.
However, the NLRC, “on grounds of equity,” simultaneously ordered the petitioner to pay Abreu separation pay equivalent to fifteen days’ pay for every year of his 23 years of unblemished service. Itogon-Suyoc Mines contested this award, arguing that dismissal for a just cause precludes the grant of separation pay and that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
ISSUE
Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in awarding separation pay to an employee dismissed for a just cause involving breach of trust.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the NLRC’s award of separation pay. The legal logic is clear and twofold. First, the Court upheld the NLRC’s factual finding of breach of trust, which Abreu did not appeal, making it final and conclusive. Dismissal for a just cause under Article 283 of the Labor Code, such as breach of trust, does not entitle the employee to separation pay. The Implementing Rules explicitly state that separation from work for a just cause does not grant termination pay.
Second, the Court ruled that the principle of equity cannot be invoked to justify an award contrary to settled law. Where the law is clear and applicable, as in the case of dismissal for cause, equity has no application. The employer’s right to dismiss an employee guilty of an act inimical to its interests is paramount. While the Court acknowledged Abreu’s long service, this factor cannot override the legal consequence of a dismissal based on a just cause. The preventive suspension period was deemed sufficient equitable consideration, and no further monetary award was warranted. The decision affirmed the dismissal without any obligation to pay separation benefits.