Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49818:gr-163561-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:48:01+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 163561 - Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative Inc. v. NLRC, et al.
CENTRAL PANGASINAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and LITO CAGAMPAN, Respondents.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision1 dated December 11, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62285 and its Resolution2 dated April 19, 2004, denying the motion for reconsideration. The appellate court had affirmed the Decision3 dated July 31, 2000 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which sustained the decision4 dated January 14, 2000 of the Labor Arbiter.
Private respondent Lito Cagampan was the Acting Power Use Coordinator of petitioner Central Pangasinan Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CENPELCO). On November 7, 1998, Cagampan received a check amounting to P100,831 from Aurora B. Bonifacio as partial payment for the installation of a transformer in her building and expansion of a three-phase line.
In a letter5 dated November 14, 1998, Bonifacio informed CENPELCO's General Manager Salvador de Guzman of the said transaction and that Cagampan did not issue a receipt for the partial payment made. She also requested the immediate installation of the transformer. Thereafter, Cagampan was directed to explain in writing why he should not be disciplined or dismissed for the unauthorized acceptance of payments for new electrical connections.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The respondent corporation is, however, ordered to pay the complainant P99,345.00 (P9,934.50 - 2 = P4,967.25 x 20) by way of separation pay.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC. In a decision dated July 31, 2000, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. Private respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied. CENPELCO sought reconsideration of the award of separation pay but was also denied. Hence, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals on the ground that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction by affirming the award of separation pay to private respondent. The appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied.
Simply stated, at issue in this case is the propriety of the award of separation pay to private respondent.
We find for petitioner. Separation pay should not be awarded.
WHEREFORE,the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 11, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62285 and its Resolution dated April 19, 2004, denying the motion for reconsideration, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
1 Rollo, pp. 30-35. Penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-Dela Cruz, with Associate Justices Eliezer R. De Los Santos and Jose C. Mendoza concurring.
14 Section 7. Termination of employment by employer. The just causes for terminating the services of an employee shall be those provided in Article 282 of the Code. The separation from work of an employee for a just cause does not entitle him to the termination pay provided in the Code, without prejudice, however, to whatever rights, benefits and privileges he may have under the applicable individual or collective bargaining agreement with the employer or voluntary employer policy or practice.
15 Etcuban, Jr. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 148410, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 516, 533-534, citing Phil. Long Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC, No. L-80609, August 23, 1988, 164 SCRA 671, 682.
16 San Miguel Corporation v. Lao, G.R. NOS. 143136-37, July 11, 2002, 384 SCRA 504, 510.
18 Tres Reyes v. Maxim's Tea House, G.R. No. 140853, February 27, 2003, 398 SCRA 288, 298.
19 Etcuban, Jr. v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., supra at 532, citing Flores v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 96969, March 2, 1993, 219 SCRA 350, 355.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.