Apacible v. Multimed (G.R. No. 178903; May 30, 2011)
FACTS: On August 4, 2003, petitioner was informed by respondent Marlene Orozco (Marlene), that she would be transferred to the companys main office in Pasig City due to reorganization.
A week later, petitioner was informed that her transfer would be effective August 18, 2003.On even date, she was placed under investigation for the delayed released of BCRs (cash budget for customer representation in sealed envelopes which are given to loyal clients).
Finding that the delay in releasing the BCRs amounted to loss of trust and confidence, petitioner was given the option to resign.She thereupon reported to the head office in Pasig City where she met on August 23, 2003 with Marlene and respondent Ma. Luz B. Yan (referred to as Jig Blanco Yan [Jig]), respondent companys HR Manager.
Petitioner claims that Jig gave her four options:resignation, termination, availment of an early retirement package, or transfer to Pasig City.Without availing of any option, petitioner took a leave of absence.
On September 1, 2003, petitioner, through Atty. Leo Montenegro, sent lettersto respondent Olga Mari (Olga) and Jig denouncing their August 23 meeting. In the same letter, Atty. Montenegro demanded payment of separation pay and stated that he had advised petitioner to remain in her current position in Cebu.
Respondent company sent petitioner a memorandum-directivefor her to immediately report to the head office in Pasig City. Petitioner did not heed the directive, instead she filed an application for sick leave. By Memorandum respondent reiterated its directive.
On October 7, 2003, petitioner was given a show cause noticefor her to explain in writing why she should not be sanctioned for insubordination for failure to comply with the transfer order. Again, petitioner, through Atty. Montenegro, wrote respondent company, maintaining that she was "not transferring to Manila" and that if the company "want[ed] petitioner out of the company," separation pay must be paid.
By letterof October 14, 2003 to Atty. Montenegro, respondent company denied having pressured petitioner as it stressed that the transfer was based on business demands.
On November 4, 2002, respondent company sent petitioner a notice of termination forinsubordination, prompting petitioner to file a complaintfor illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime pay, 13thmonth pay, service incentive leave pay, separation pay, damages and attorneys fees before the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed petitioners complaint, ruling that she was dismissed for just cause.
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmedthe LAs decision but on a different ground petitioners refusal to obey the transfer orders which amounted to insubordination.The NLRC, however, granted petitioner separation pay by way of financial assistance. In granting separation pay, it was noted that petitioners refusal to comply with the transfer orders was upon advice of her counsel, hence, there was a "modicum of good faith" on her part.
Respondent company moved for partial reconsideration of this ruling which was denied.
The issue was raised to the CA which granted the companys appeal by modifying the NLRCs decision.
Petitioners MR was denied thus the present petition praying for the restoration of the award of the separation pay by way of financial assistance.
ISSUE:
Is petitioner is entitled separation pay by way of financial assistance.
HELD: While it is true that there have been instances when the Court awarded financial assistance to employees who were terminated for just causes, on grounds of equity and social justice, the same cannot be sustained in the case of validly terminated employees, whose offenses are iniquitous or reflective of some depravity in their moral character.When the employee commits an act of dishonesty, depravity, or iniquity, the grant of financial assistance is misplaced compassion.
Here,petitioner was, it bears reiteration, dismissed for wilfully disobeying the lawful order of her employer to transfer from Cebu to Pasig City.As correctly noted by the appellate court, petitioner knew and accepted respondent companys policy on transfers when she was hired and was in fact even transferred many times from one area of operations to another Bacolod City, Iloilo City and Cebu. Clearly, petitioners adamant refusal to transfer, coupled with her failure to heed the order for her return the company vehicle assigned to her and, more importantly, allowing her counsel to write letters couched in harsh language to her superiors unquestionably show that she was guilty of insubordination, hence, not entitled to the award of separation pay.
