G.R. No. 188747 - MANILA WATER COMPANY, VS. CARLITO DEL ROSARIO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit. [Manila Water] is hereby ordered to pay complainant separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) months salary for every year of service based on his basic salary (Php 11,244.00) at the time of his dismissal. This shall be computed from [1 August 1997] up to June 2000, the total amount of which is ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND SIXTY-TWO (Php 118,062.00) PESOS. [10] In a Resolution [11] dated 30 September 2003, the NLRC dismissed the appeal interposed by Manila Water for its failure to append a certification against forum shopping in its Memorandum of Appeal. Similarly ill-fated was Manila Waters Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution [12] dated 28 April 2005. On Certiorari , the Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 31 March 2009, reversed the NLRC Resolution and held that it committed a grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Manila Waters appeal on mere technicality. The appellate court, however, proceeded to affirm the decision of the Labor Arbiter awarding separation pay to Del Rosario. Considering that Del Rosario rendered 21 years of service to the company without previous derogatory record, the appellate court considered the granting of separation pay by the labor officer justified. The fallo of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the petition is partly granted. The assailed Resolutions dated September 30, 2003 and [April 28, 2005] of public respondent NLRC are set aside. The Decision dated May 30, 2002 of the [L]abor [A]rbiter is reinstated, subject to the modification that the computation of the award of separation pay [to] private respondent shall be counted from August 1, 1997 x x x up to June 2000. [13] In a Resolution [14] dated 7 July 2009, the Court of Appeals refused to reconsider its earlier decision. Unrelenting, Manila Water filed the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the foregoing Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution on the sole ground that: THE [COURT OF APPEALS] SERIOUSLY ERRED IN ISSUING THE QUESTIONED DECISION AND RESOLUTION WHICH DIRECTLY CONTRAVENE BOOK VI, RULE 1, AND SECTION 7 OF THE OMNIBUS RULES IMPLEMENTING THE LABOR CODE AND PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE WHICH CATEGORICALLY PROVIDE THAT AN EMPLOYEE SEPARATED FROM SERIOUS MISCONDUCT IS NOT ENTITLED TO TERMINATION (SEPARATION) PAY. [15] The Courts Ruling In the instant petition, Manila Water essentially questions the award of separation pay to respondent who was dismissed for stealing the companys property which amounted to gross misconduct. It argues that separation pay or financial assistance is not awarded to employees guilty of gross misconduct or for cause reflecting on his moral character. [16] Del Rosario for his part maintains that there is no legal ground to justify his termination from employment. He insists that his admission pertaining to his invo