G.R. No. 128345 Case Digest

G.R. No. 128345, May 18, 1999

Phil. Nat'l. Construction Corp., petitioner,

vs NLRC, Rolando Angeles and Ricardo Pablo, Jr., respondents.

Ponente: Puno

Facts:

This is a special civil action for certiorari to the decision of NLRC granting the separation pay to the private respondents inspite of its finding that they were validly dismissed for committing bribery.

Angeles and Pablo were employed by PNCC as tollway guards posted in NLEX. They were terminated on the ground of serious misconduct.

On September 8, 1993, Rosario Maravilla complained to the Tollway General Manager, Mr Paulino about mulcting activities of some security in NLEX. Acting on complaint Mr Paulino formed an investigating team. 

The investigating team staged an entrapment, with a marked money. They handed the marked money to Maravilla with instructions to give to whoever that may demand money from her. Together they rode a jeepney with cargo of dogs destined for Baguio.

The jeepney was stopped by Angeles who was at that time on duty. He allegedly suspected them of illegal transporting of dogs. The members of the investigating team saw Angeles and Pablo accepted cash and a sack containing a dog from Maravilla, then they were allowed to leave.

Upon sight of the investigating team, Angeles dropped the marked money. He was brought to Sta. Rita Field Office for initial investigation and the dog was confiscated from Pablo.

On April 25, 1994, Mr Ibarra issued a notice of Dismissal to private respondents requiring them to answer the charge of serious misconduct. private respondents filed their respective answers and a formal investigation was held. After the formal investigation, dismissal was recommended. Mr Ibarra then issued a termination notice to the respondents informing them of their dismissal.

On June 17, 1994 private respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal alleging that they were dismissed without just or authorized cause and without due process. They claimed that the entrapment was mastermind by Hidalgo. The complaint prayed for reinstatement plus payment of backwages and mid-year bonus.

The Labor arbiter ruled that respondents dismissal was illegal because it failed to prove clear and convincing evidence that they committed serious misconduct. But Labor arbiter didn't order for their reinstatement but ordered for separation pay, backwages and mid-year bonus.

On appeal, NLRC modified the decision and held that the bribery was a sufficient ground for dismissal but ordered nonetheless for the separation pay on ground of equity. Petitioner filed for reconsideration but was denied by NLRC for lack of merit.

Issues: (1) error in not finding the ONCC guilty of estoppel and laches. (2) before NLRC, decision of court has become final and executory. (3) whether entitled to pay, backwages and bonus?

The Solicitor General, on the other hand, filed its comment on May 4, 1998. It submitted that the NLRC erred in awarding separation pay to private respondents although it was correct in awarding mid-year bonus to them. The Solicitor General thus recommended that the decision of the NLRC be modified by deleting the award of separation pay to private respondents. 

In view of the recommendation of the Solicitor General, we required the NLRC to file its own comment if it so desires within ten days from notice. The NLRC, however, failed to file its own comment within the prescribed period.

RUling:

(1) Disagree. Laches, in a general sense, is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier.  Estoppel by laches arises from the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. It does not merely speak of delay but unreasonable delay, which is absent in this case. An employer is not expected to dismiss an erring employee instantly because it may opt to give the employee the chance to reform and to regain his confidence.

(2) There was no fixed standard to determine the reasonableness of the period, but the Court generally considered the period of three (3) months to be reasonable.

The records show that petitioner received the resolution of the NLRC denying its motion for reconsideration on December 16, 1996 and the petition at bar was filed two (2) months and twenty-seven (27) days later. We thus find that the instant petition was filed on time.

(3) We rule in the negative.

An employee who is dismissed for just cause is generally not entitled to separation pay. In some cases, however, the Court awards separation pay to a legally dismissed employee on the grounds of equity and social justice. This is not allowed, though, when the employee has been dismissed for serious misconduct or some other cause reflecting on his moral character. 

In the case at bar, private respondents were caught in the act of accepting bribe in the form of cash and a dog from a motorist who was suspected of illegally transporting dogs. As tollway guards, private respondents had the duty to maintain peace and order at the North Luzon Expressway and to ensure that all tollway rules and regulations are followed. But private respondents did the contrary by yielding to bribery. 

Likewise, private respondents are not entitled to the mid-year bonus they are claiming. We do not agree with the Solicitor General's contention that private respondents have already earned their mid-year bonus at the time of their dismissal. A bonus is a gift from the employer and the grant thereof is a management prerogative. Petitioner may not be compelled to award a bonus to private respondents whom it found guilty of serious misconduct.