TIRAZONA v. PHILIPPINE EDS TECHNO-SERVICE INC.

Chico-Nazario, J. Jan. 20, 2009 G.R. No. 169712

Doctrine 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.
Summary Tirazona was dismissed from service by PET for willful breach of trust. The NLRC, CA, and SC all ruled in
favor of PET. In her second MR, she prayed for the invalidation of her dismissal and for the award of
separation pay on the basis of equity. SC: denied petition for lack of merit.
Facts • Because of improper handling of a situation involving a rank-and-file employee, officers/directors of
Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc. (PET) called the attention of Wenelita Tirazona, PET’s
Administrative Manager. Claiming she was denied due process, she demanded a Php 2 Million
indemnity from PET’s officers and directors. She also admitted to reading a confidential letter
addressed to PET’s officers and directors containing the legal opinion of PET’s counsel about her
case. Because of this, she was validly terminated on the ground that she willfully breached the trust
and confidence reposed in her by her PET, her employer. SC denied her original petition.
• Tirazona later filed an MR praying that her dismissal be declared illegal and that she be awarded
separation pay and retirement benefits out of humanitarian considerations. SC denied this MR.
• Tirazona filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second MR for the reconsideration of the SC resolution,
raising essentially the same arguments and prayers.

Issues/Ratio W/N Tirazona’s dismissal was justifiable—YES

• A second MR is prohibited, except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons (Sec. 2, Rule 52, ROC).
No extraordinary persuasive reasons are present in this case to allow said second MR.
• An employee dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under Art. 282 of the Labor Code is
not entitled to separation pay. Only unjustly dismissed employees are entitled to retirement benefits
and other privileges (reinstatement, backwages). An exception to this is that separation pay/other
financial assistance may be allowed to an employee dismissed for just causes 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.
• Tirazona is not entitled to separation pay for violating the trust and confidence reposed in her when
she demanded the exorbitant amount of Php 2M with a threat of a lawsuit if she was not paid within
five days. She continually refused to cooperate with PET’s investigation of her case.
• Tirazona tried to persuade the SC to consider the length of her service. She claimed she worked
for PET for 26 years but it was later discovered that she had been there for 2 years and 9 months.
• Quote which may be useful: “The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing
simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. At best it may mitigate the penalty but it
certainly will not condone the offense…Those who invoke social justice may do so only if their
hands are clean and their motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor. This
great policy of our Constitution is not meant for the protection of those who have proved they are
not worthy of it, like the workers who have tainted the cause of labor with the blemishes of their
own character.”
• The cases Tirazona cited had different circumstances, & thus do not apply:
1. Soco v. Mercantile Corporation of Davao and Firestone v. Lariosa, separation pay was
granted to the dismissed employees, as they were rank-and-file who did not have any
previous derogatory record and in equitable regard for their 10 years of service.
2. Farrol v. CA, separation pay was awarded because dismissal was held to be harsh and
disproportionate to the offense and the dismissed employee had been at the service of the
company for 24 years.
3. Negros Navigation Co. Inc. v. NLRC, separation pay was awarded to the employee dismissed,
as it was the employer itself that prayed for the award of the same, in lieu of the employees
reinstatement.
4. PCIB v. Abad, separation pay was granted because there was an express finding that the
violation of bank policies was not done for the employee’s self-interest, nor did the employee
exhibit moral depravity. The employee had been working for the company for 25 years.

Held Motion for leave to file a second MR DENIED

Prepared by: Bries