GR 117394; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117394 February 21, 1997
HINATUAN MINING CORPORATION AND/OR THE MANAGER, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MARGOT BATISTER, respondents.
FACTS
Margot Batister, employed by Hinatuan Mining Corporation since 1981 and later its chief chemist, voluntarily resigned in 1993. Prior to her resignation, the company had sent her on a costly training program in Japan. Batister claimed entitlement to separation pay, citing a company practice of granting such benefits to resigning managerial employees, as evidenced by prior cases involving former officers like Rizalino Alcantara. The company opposed her claim, arguing that separation pay is not due to voluntarily resigning employees, that Batister was bound by an unwritten policy to stay for four years post-training, and that the collective bargaining agreement’s benefits did not cover her as a managerial employee.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed Batister’s complaint. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, awarding her full separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary per year of service, plus damages and attorney’s fees. The NLRC based its ruling on the established company practice of granting separation pay to resigning managerial employees, as previously affirmed in the Alcantara case. Hinatuan Mining filed this petition challenging the NLRC’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether a voluntarily resigning employee is entitled to separation pay based on an established employer practice, notwithstanding the absence of a statutory or contractual right.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC decision with modification. The legal logic is anchored on the principle of non-discrimination and established employer practice. While the Labor Code does not grant separation pay to employees who voluntarily resign, such a benefit can be demandable if the employer has voluntarily and consistently granted it to similarly situated employees, thereby creating a company practice.
The Court found that Hinatuan Mining had established a practice of awarding separation pay to resigning managerial employees, as conclusively shown in the prior Alcantara case and other instances involving officers like Engr. Rogelio Bayutas. Batister, being a managerial employee in a similar position, could not be discriminated against by being denied the same benefit. The company’s argument that her case was different due to her recent training was unavailing, as the record showed Engr. Bayutas also received training and was still granted separation pay upon his earlier resignation. Furthermore, Batister had not signed any contract obliging her to remain for a specific period post-training.
However, the Court modified the computation of the separation pay. Since the proven company practice, as evidenced in the cases of Marcial Lor and Rizalino Alcantara, was to grant only one-half month’s pay per year of service, the NLRC erred in awarding one month’s pay per year. The award of moral and exemplary damages was sustained due to the company’s unjust refusal to extend the established benefit. The case was remanded to the NLRC for recomputation.