G.R. No. 131523 - TRAVELAIRE & TOURS CORP. AND/OR CHRISTINE B. OJEDA, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND NENITA I. MEDELYN.

Ruling

Wherefore, the respondents are herby ordered to pay the complainant her proportionate 13th month pay for the year 1994 in th amount of P2,866.67 as computed by MR. BENJAMIN MARTIN of the Commision's NLRC NCR Branch. All other claims are dismissed for lack of evidence. Not satisfied with the decision, private respondent filed an appeal for the National Labor Relation Commission, alleging that she is entitled to separation pay since other employees of the company who had also resigned were granted the same benefit. The NLRC this modified the laborarbiter's decision and ordered patitioner to pay private respondent separation pay in the amount of P55,400.00 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration from the decision of the NLRC was denied, hence this petition. We affirm the ruling of the public respondent NLRC. The general rule is that an employee who voluntarily resigns from employment is not entitled to separation pay unless, however. there is a stipulation for payment of such in the employment contract or Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), or payment of the amount is sanctioned by established employer practice or policy. [4] Private respondent claims that she is entitled to separation pay inasmuch as, for the period 1991 to 1996, three former employees of the company who had resigned ahead of private respondent and on separate dates, namely Rogelio Abendan, Anastacio Cabate, and Raul C. Loya [5] were given separation pay. It is therefore, the contention of private respondent that payment of separation pay to resigning employees already constitutes company practice and an established policy of her employer, hence she should also be entitled to this benefit. Petitioner, on the other hand, admits giving certain sums of money to Anastacio Cabate and Raul C. Loya out of the companys generosity and which are not equivalent to separation pay. [6] In ordering petitioner to give private respondent separation pay, public respondent NLRC ruled that there exist a company policy/practice, to wit: x x x. However, we agree with the complainant that the Labor Arbiter erred in not awarding separation pay and service incentive leave pay. The record shows that the respondent had paid separation pay to al least three (3) employees, namely, Rogelio Abenden (page 9, Record); Anastacio Cabate (page 16, Record); Raul C. Loya (pages 16 and 33). Although in the case of Cabate and Loya the amount given was called ex gratia payment, it was nevertheless given upon separation of the employees from the company. The respondent said it was not separation pay but an amount given by the company out of generosity. If the respondent could be generous to some of its employees, why did it deny the complainant the same consideration. There is no reason why the company should discriminate against the complainant who had also served the company for a long time. [7] Well-established is the principle that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are accorded with respe