FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 220380. October 12, 2015.]
MARIO C. CUTAMORA, HEIR[S] OF MARICRIS CUTAMORA, petitioner, vs. EASTERN GOLD CORP. AND NELSON TY, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 12, 2015 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 220380 [formerly UDK 15350] (Mario C. Cutamora, heir[s] of Maricris Cutamora, Petitioner, v. Eastern Gold Corp. and Nelson Ty, Respondents).
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to assail the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals 1 (CA) dated 20 November 2014 and 8 June 2015, respectively, affirming the ruling of the Labor Arbiter 2 and National Labor Relations Commission 3 (NLRC), which dismissed Mario C. Cutamora's (Mario) complaint against Eastern Gold Corp. (Eastern) and Nelson Ty (Ty).
Facts
Before she passed away due to child birth, Maricris Cutamora was a regular employee of nine (9) years of Eastern. After her untimely demise, Mario went to Ty, Eastern's representative, to claim for benefits due to Maricris. Ty gave Mario the amount of P15,000.00 as cash advance on his claims and an additional P1,000.00 as "abuloy." When Mario returned for the remaining benefits, his claim was declined.
Aggrieved, Mario filed a complaint for separation pay and 13th month pay against Eastern and Ty before the Labor Arbiter. The complaint was dismissed. According to the Labor Arbiter, because Maricris was not separated from work due to any of the circumstances under the law, her heirs are not entitled to separation pay. However, the Labor Arbiter granted the award of 13th month pay in the amount of P7,002.67. Considering that Mario already received the amount of P15,000.00 from Eastern and Ty, more than the amount due to Maricris, Mario was actually overpaid.
On appeal, the NLRC upheld the ruling of the Labor Arbiter. However, the NLRC ruled that the amount due to Maricris is P8,442.39, representing her 13th month pay and Service Incentive Leave Pay (SILP). Parallel with the ruling of the Labor Arbiter, because Mario already received the amount of P15,000.00 from Eastern and Ty, more than the amount due to Maricris, Mario's claim is already deemed paid.
When Mario elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, the case was dismissed. The Court of Appeals held that separation pay is available only to those employees who were dismissed due to closure of establishment or cessation of business under Article 283 of the Labor Code and those employees who were dismissed due to disease whose continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to his co-employees under Article 284 of the Labor Code. In the case at bar, Maricris was not dismissed due to grounds under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code. There was neither prior agreement requiring Eastern to pay its employees separation pay in case of death nor was Maricris illegally dismissed. SaCIDT
Hence, the present Petition, which avers that the heirs of Maricris are entitled to separation pay on the ground of social justice.
Our Ruling
Separation pay is warranted under the circumstances provided under Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code:
Art. 283. Closure of establishment and reduction of personnel. — The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Title, by serving a written notice on the workers and the Ministry of Labor and Employment at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof. In case of termination due to the installation of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the worker affected thereby shall be entitled to a separation pay equivalent to at least his one (1) month pay or to at least one (1) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. In case of retrenchment to prevent losses and in cases of closures or cessation of operations of establishment or undertaking not due to serious business losses or financial reverses, the separation pay shall be equivalent to one (1) month pay or at least one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. A fraction of at least six (6) months shall be considered one (1) whole year.
Art. 284. Disease as ground for termination. An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees: Provided, That he is paid separation pay equivalent to at least one (1) month salary or to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, whichever is greater, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one (1) whole year.
Clearly, the facts surrounding the case do not fall under any of the aforesaid grounds.
With regard to the claim of separation pay based on social justice, Mario's argument is misplaced. Indeed, this Court has granted separation pay on the ground of social justice. However, the grant of separation pay based on such ground is warranted only under exceptional cases. As already held, the exceptional cases are when the dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct; and (2) did not reflect on the moral character of the employee. Our disquisition in Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC is instructive:
We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice. 4
The facts surrounding the case do not fall under any of the exceptional circumstances. Maricris was not dismissed under any of the aforesaid grounds, nay she was not dismissed at all.
WHEREFORE, the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals in "Mario C. Cutamora, heirs of Maricris Cutamora v. National Labor Relations Commission, Eastern Gold Corp., and Nelson Ty", dated 20 November 2014 and 8 June 2015, respectively, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 130563, which dismissed the petition are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." cHECAS
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang with Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring; rollo, pp. 20-24 and 26-27.
2. Penned by Labor Arbiter Cheryl M. Ampil; id. at 49-53.
3. Penned by Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap with Commissioners Leonardo L. Leonida and Dolores M. Peralta-Beley, concurring; id. at 46-47.
4. Unilever Philippines, Inc. v. Rivera, G.R. No. 201701, June 3, 2013, 697 SCRA 136, 147-148 citing Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. NLRC, 247 Phil. 641, 649 (1988).