No compassion for employees who steal company property

The Supreme Court has reiterated what has been a well-settled rule in labor laws and jurisprudence, that the law would refuse to extend compassion to an employee who has betrayed his employer's trust and steal his own company's property. Stealing from one's employer is tantamount to qualified theft and would even entail a higher penalty under our criminal law, if the owners would choose to press criminal charges against the erring worker. The highest court of the land released its ruling on January 29, 2014 in the case of Manila Water Company versus CDR (disguised to protect his reputation) in  case number GR 188747. This means that workers have no chance to win their complaint for illegal dismissal if and when management is able to prove by substantial evidence their guilt for theft.

What were discovered to have been stolen were 24 water meters, which allegedly were pilfered by CDR and another worker. When asked to explain, CDR admitted his guilt and forthwith asked for forgiveness. After due process, he was dismissed for cause in 2000. He filed a case for illegal dismissal. In 2000, the arbiter ruled that the dismissal was legal but awarded CDR separation pay on account of his long years in service. The company appealed but the NLRC dismissed the appeal in 2005 on technicality. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in 2009 but the Supreme Court, in January this year, decided that there is no basis to grant separation pay because the dismissal was perfectly legal and because the offense was stealing.

In denying any separation pay, the High Court stressed the prevailing jurisprudence that an employee who has been dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under Article 282 ( now 288 ) of the Labor Code is not entitled to separation benefits (citing Central Pangasinan Electric Coop versus NLRC, ( 555 Philippines 134, 2007 ). Under Book VI, Rule I, Section 7 of theOmnibus Rules Implementing The Labor Code, the dismissal from work of an employee based on JUST CAUSE does not entitle him to any separation pay. By way of exception only, such separation pay may be granted based on the tenets of SOCIAL JUSTICE and on equitable grounds (citing Unilever, GR 201701, June 3, 2013). This case however does not fall within the purview of the exception.

In the leading case of PLDT versus NLRC, ( 247 Phil 641, 1988 ), the Supreme Court laid down the rule that separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in instances where the reason for terminating the employment was not serious misconduct  nor any fault reflecting on the employee's character. Where the cause of dismissal is theft, or intoxication, or illicit sex, or any despicable act, there is neither rhyme nor reason to reward the erring employee. The High Court thus forewarned that to give money to a legally dismissed worker would have the effect of rewarding him for such a deplorable offense. If such reward is given, then the erring worker may yet repeat the offense in his next employer. The High Court would never compromise on dishonesty.

In that cited case of PLDT, the Court said: "The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because it was committed by the underprivileged. At best, it may mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone the offense. 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 made the 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 when their hands are clean, and when their motives are blameless, and not simply because they happen to be poor." Poverty therefore cannot be made an excuse for stealing from one's own employer.

The Supreme Court held that " this great policy of the Constitution is not meant for the protection of those who have proved that they are not worthy of it, like some workers who have tainted the cause of labor by the blemishes of their character." Thus, in this case of Manila Water, while the arbiter, the NLRC, the Court of Appeals  and the Supreme Court were unanimous in granting separation pay, the Supreme Court put its feet down and declared that separation pay in this case has no legal nor jurisprudential basis. We fully agree with the Court  because its ruling is very much in faithful compliance with the law, and an adherence to the imperatives of the times.

The Supreme Court stressed that protection to labor does not include committing injustice against the company. The Court's commitment to the cause of labor does not justify deciding in favor of the employee when he is not right. Long years of service cannot justify an award of separation pay or financial assistance in favor of an erring worker. The Court said: The fact that the worker served the company for more than twenty years, with no negative record, does not justify award of separation benefit because his offense reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty and was a blatant betrayal of the company. The labor front applauds the Court for this decision. Our country needs not only men and women of world class competence but also workers of unassailable character. That is what matters most in this Court ruling. No more and no less.