G.R. No. 214230 - SECURITY BANK SAVINGS CORPORATION (FORMERLY PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK)/HERMINIO FAMATIGAN, JR., VS. CHARLES M. SINGSON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, declared respondent to have been terminated from employment for a valid cause. The LA found that respondent not only committed a violation of SBSC's Code of Conduct but also gross and habitual neglect of duties when he repeatedly allowed Pinero to bring outside the bank premises the checkbooks and bank forms despite knowledge of the bank's prohibition on the matter. According to the LA, the fact that SBSC suffered no actual loss or damage did not in any way affect the validity of his termination. This notwithstanding, the LA awarded respondent separation pay by way of financial assistance in the amount of P218,500.00. Aggrieved, petitioners appealed [18] to the NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No. 10-14683-09, assailing the grant of financial assistance to respondent despite a finding that he was validly dismissed. The NLRC Ruling In a Decision [19] dated April 25, 2011, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision, ruling that the grant of separation pay was justified on equitable grounds such as respondent's length of service, and that the cause of his dismissal was not due to gross misconduct or that reflecting on his moral character but rather, a weakness of disposition and grievous error in judgment. [20] It likewise observed that respondent never repeated the act complained of when he was transferred to other branches. Thus, it found the award of separation pay of one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service to be reasonable. Petitioners moved for reconsideration [21] which was likewise denied in a Resolution [22] dated June 17, 2011, prompting them to elevate the matter to the CA on certiorari , docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 121053. [23] The CA Ruling In a Decision [24] dated May 21, 2014, the CA denied the petition and sustained the award of separation pay. The CA pointed out that separation pay may be allowed as a measure of social justice where an employee was validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. It held that since respondent's infractions involved violations of company policy and habitual neglect of duties and not serious misconduct, and that his dismissal from work was not reflective of his moral character, the NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion in sustaining the award of separation pay by way of financial assistance. It further concluded that respondent did not commit a dishonest act since he readily admitted to the petitioners that he allowed the Branch Manager to bring out the subject checkbooks. Moreover, it ruled that while respondent acquiesced to the latter's marketing strategy that was contrary to the bank's rules and regulations, there was no showing that his conduct was perpetrated with self-interest or for an unlawful purpose. Hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in upholding the award of separation pay as financial assistance to respondent despite having be