Facts:

Petitioner Corporation terminated Nenita Capor after she was caught sneaking out cans of RENO
products during a standard operating procedure of searching the belongings of employees upon
leaving company premises conducted by the guards. Capor alleged that the goods in her bag
were not pilfered and that it may have just been planted by the company to avoid paying
separation pay as she was already about to retire. RENO filed a case of qualified theft against
Capor. While NLM-Katipunan filed in behalf of Capor, a case of illegal dismissal and money
claims against RENO before the Head Arbitration Office of the NLRC, praying that Capor be awarded
backwages and moral and exemplary damages. The Labor Arbiter found Capor guilty of grave
misconduct which was just cause for termination. Further, that Capor is not entitled to reinstatement,
backwages, moral and exemplary damages. On appeal, the NLRC modified the ruling by awarding
separation pay to Capor as financial assistance. Petitioner appealed before the CA, which affirmed the
ruling of NLRC. Meanwhile, Capor was acquitted of qualified theft charges.

Issue:

Is an employee terminated for just cause entitled to financial assistance?

Ruling:

No. Separation pay is only warranted when the cause for termination is not attributable to the
employees fault, , such as those provided in Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code, as well as in cases
of illegal dismissal in which reinstatement is no longer feasible. It is not allowed when an employee is
dismissed for just cause, such as serious misconduct.

The Court awards financial assistance to employees who were terminated for just causes, on grounds of
equity and social justice. We recognized the harsh realities faced by employees that forced them,
despite their good intentions, to violate company policies, for which the employer can rightfully terminate
their employment. BUT the award of financial assistance shall not be given to 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. It is tantamount not only to condoning a patently illegal or dishonest act, but an
endorsement thereof. It will be an insult to all the laborers who, despite their economic difficulties, strive
to maintain good values and moral conduct.

Further, an employees acquittal in a criminal case, especially one that is grounded on the existence of
reasonable doubt, will not preclude a determination in a labor case that he is guilty of acts inimical to the
employers interests. Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt while labor disputes require
only substantial evidence. Since the Labor tribunals found substantial evidence to conclude that Capor
had been validly dismissed for dishonesty or serious misconduct there is no compelling reason to doubt
the common findings of these reviewing bodies.

On Capors allegation that her length of service and previously clean employment record
should be considered in awarding her separation pay, the Court ruled that it cannot simply erase
the gravity of the betrayal exhibited by a malfeasant employee. Length of service is not a bargaining
chip that can simply be stacked against the employer. After all, an employer-employee relationship is
symbiotic where both parties benefit from mutual loyalty and dedicated service. If an employer had
treated his employee well, has accorded him fairness and adequate compensation as determined by
law, it is only fair to expect a long-time employee to return such fairness with at least some respect and
honesty. Betrayal by a long-time employee is more insulting and odious for a fair employer.