View full case

AMERICAN EXPRESS TRANSNATIONAL v. MENANDRO T. BORRE

FACTS:

The consolidated cases of G.R. No. 228320 and G.R. No. 228344 involve a petition for review on certiorari assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 137597. American Express Transnational (now Adventure International Tours, Inc.) and Carlo Severino question the award of separation pay to Menandro Borre, who was legally dismissed from employment. Borre, on the other hand, questions the CA Decision affirming with modification the National Labor Relations Commission's dismissal of his illegal dismissal complaint. Borre was employed as a company driver by AITI and was terminated for his refusal to drive for an official business trip and subsequent incidents where he unjustifiably failed to perform his duties. AITI issued a Notice to Explain and conducted an administrative hearing before ultimately dismissing Borre. Borre then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, damages, and attorney's fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of AITI, finding that Borre was validly dismissed for just cause. The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's ruling, and Borre's motion for reconsideration was denied. Borre then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter and NLRC's finding of legal dismissal but granted separation pay as a form of financial assistance to Borre due to his long years of service. The CA ordered AITI to pay Borre separation pay calculated from the time he commenced employment until his termination.

ISSUES:

  1. Was Borre validly dismissed from employment?

  2. Was the award of separation pay proper?

  3. Whether separation pay can be granted to employees who have been validly terminated on grounds other than serious misconduct or acts reflecting on their moral character.

  4. Whether the respondent is entitled to a separation pay as a measure of financial assistance.

  5. Whether the grant of separation pay to the respondent is justified.

RULING:

  1. The Court affirmed the finding of the CA that Borre was validly dismissed from employment. The Court held that the determination of whether the incidents of insubordination or willful disobedience actually transpired and the details surrounding said incidents involve factual issues. The Court stated that it is not a trier of facts and will not review the factual findings of the lower tribunals unless there are recognized exceptions. Since there were no recognized exceptions and the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and CA all had uniform factual findings, the Court is bound to respect and uphold their findings. The Court also noted that the employer presented substantial evidence to prove Borre's willful disobedience, while Borre's denial was unsupported by any evidence.

  2. The Court held that generally, an employee dismissed for a just cause is not entitled to separation pay. However, the Court recognized the exception where separation pay may be granted based on equity and as a measure of social justice. The Court noted that the Constitutional mandate for the promotion of social justice and the protection of the laborer's rights justifies this exception. Therefore, the CA correctly awarded separation pay to Borre as a form of financial assistance. The Court further explained that the amount of separation pay should be equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, with a fraction of six months considered as one whole year.

  3. Separation pay cannot be granted to employees who have been validly terminated on grounds other than serious misconduct or acts reflecting on their moral character. Exceptional or peculiar circumstances must be present for the grant of separation pay despite a valid termination.

  4. The Court ruled that the respondent is entitled to a separation pay as a measure of financial assistance considering his length of service and poor physical condition, which was one of the reasons for his filing of leaves of absence.

  5. The Court found that the grant of separation pay to the respondent was unjustified. The cause of termination of his employment was willful disobedience under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code. The respondent's repeated refusal to perform his job demonstrated his utter disregard for his employment and his employer's interest. Moreover, there were no exceptional or peculiar circumstances in the case that would warrant the awarding of separation pay or financial assistance to an employee who engaged in misconduct. The Court emphasized that social justice cannot be used as a refuge for scoundrels and that compassion for the poor is only warranted when the recipient's hands are clean and motives blameless.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Factual issues are improper in a petition for review on certiorari. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and will not review the factual findings of the lower tribunals, unless there are recognized exceptions.

  • An employer must prove by substantial evidence that the employee's conduct was willful or intentional, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude, and that the order violated was reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and pertained to the duties he was engaged to discharge.

  • Generally, an employee dismissed for a just cause is not entitled to separation pay. However, an exception exists where separation pay may be awarded based on equity and as a measure of social justice, as mandated by the Constitution.

  • Separation pay or financial assistance shall not be granted to employees when the cause of their dismissal is any of the grounds provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code.

  • Separation pay may be warranted only when exceptional or peculiar circumstances attend the case despite a valid termination.

  • The grant of separation pay as a measure of social justice may be justified by considerations such as commendations, awards, promotional increases, lack of bad faith, lack of necessary skills, or lack of expertise in the assigned job.

  • Length of service and poor physical condition can be considered as grounds for granting separation pay as financial assistance.

  • Willful disobedience under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code is a just cause for termination.

  • Social justice cannot be invoked to condone wrongdoing or protect individuals who have proven themselves unworthy of its protection.

  • Compassion for the poor is only justified when the recipient's hands are clean and motives blameless.