PLDT VS NLRC

FACTS: Marilyn Abucay has been an employee of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone
Company (PLDT) for ten years when it was discovered that she accepted bribes from
certain customers in order to facilitate the phone connections of said customers. PLDT
terminated her employment. A labor case was filed by Abucay. The National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) found the dismissal to be valid but nevertheless, the NLRC ordered
PLDT to pay Abucay separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service.
PLDT assailed the said decision. PLDT averred that separation pay is only available in cases
where the employee has been illegally dismissed and reinstatement is no longer possible.
PLDT further argued that to award Abucay separation pay is tantamount to rewarding her
misdeeds.
The Solicitor General, arguing for the NLRC, cited numerous previous cases where
separation pay has been awarded by the Supreme Court even if the employees dismissal
were due to just and authorized causes.
ISSUE: Whether or not Abucay is entitled to separation pay.
HELD: No. In this case, the Supreme Court finally set the rules as to when separation pay is
proper in cases where the employee is dismissed for valid reasons.
As a rule, and under the Labor Code, a person dismissed for just and authorized causes is
not entitled to separation pay. However, based on equity, an exception can be made if the
employee is dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his
moral character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication
or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker,
the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial
assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice.
In the case at bar, the reason for Abucays dismissal is due to her acceptance of a bribe
which is dishonesty and is immoral. The fact that she has worked with the PLDT for more
than a decade, if it is to be considered at all, should be taken against her as it reflects a
regrettable lack of loyalty that she should have strengthened instead of betraying during all
of her 10 years of service with the company. The court also made a pronouncement:
Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society but only when the recipient
is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege. Social justice cannot be permitted to be
refuge of scoundrels any more than can equity be an impediment to the punishment of the
guilty. Those who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands are clean and their
motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor.