Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 176 views

    988 Del Rio Vs DPO

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    An employee resigned from his job and sought payment for unpaid salaries, accrued leave, and separation pay. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in his favor, but the CA affirmed only the unpaid salaries and leave, deleting the separation pay. The CA found that absent a contract stipulating otherwise, employees who voluntarily resign are not entitled to separation pay unless company policy or practice sanctions it. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the two instances the employee cited of others receiving separation pay upon resigning did not prove a consistent company practice, but were isolated cases done out of discretion rather than entitlement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    988 Del Rio Vs DPO

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    176 views1 page
    An employee resigned from his job and sought payment for unpaid salaries, accrued leave, and separation pay. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in his favor, but the CA affirmed only the unpaid salaries and leave, deleting the separation pay. The CA found that absent a contract stipulating otherwise, employees who voluntarily resign are not entitled to separation pay unless company policy or practice sanctions it. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the two instances the employee cited of others receiving separation pay upon resigning did not prove a consistent company practice, but were isolated cases done out of discretion rather than entitlement.

    Original Description:

    988 Del Rio vs DPO

    Original Title

    988 Del Rio vs DPO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    An employee resigned from his job and sought payment for unpaid salaries, accrued leave, and separation pay. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in his favor, but the CA affirmed only the unpaid salaries and leave, deleting the separation pay. The CA found that absent a contract stipulating otherwise, employees who voluntarily resign are not entitled to separation pay unless company policy or practice sanctions it. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the two instances the employee cited of others receiving separation pay upon resigning did not prove a consistent company practice, but were isolated cases done out of discretion rather than entitlement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    176 views1 page

    988 Del Rio Vs DPO

    Uploaded by

    erica peji
    An employee resigned from his job and sought payment for unpaid salaries, accrued leave, and separation pay. The labor arbiter and NLRC ruled in his favor, but the CA affirmed only the unpaid salaries and leave, deleting the separation pay. The CA found that absent a contract stipulating otherwise, employees who voluntarily resign are not entitled to separation pay unless company policy or practice sanctions it. The Supreme Court agreed, finding the two instances the employee cited of others receiving separation pay upon resigning did not prove a consistent company practice, but were isolated cases done out of discretion rather than entitlement.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    LABOR LAW; ENTITLEMENT TO SEPARATION PAY OF A RESIGNED EMPLOYEE

    Question: Del Rio is an employee of respondent DPO Philippines, Inc.. On September


    7, 2009, he submitted his notice of resignation which would take effect on October 7,
    2009. DPO accepted his resignation. He realized that after October 7, 2009, he was not
    yet paid of his salary for the period of September 16, 2009 to October 7, 2009. He
    sought from DPO payments of his unpaid salaries, accrued leave credits and separation
    pay, but all of these were denied. He filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration
    Branch of the NLRC in Cebu City for recovery of his monetary claims. The Labor Arbiter
    ruled in his favor, which decision was affirmed by the NLRC. In the CA, the latter court
    affirmed with modification the Decision of the NLRC by deleting the award of separation
    pay, ratiocinating that an employee who voluntarily resigns from his employment is not
    entitled to separation pay unless otherwise stipulated in the employment contract, or in
    the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), or sanctioned by established employer
    practice or policy. The mentioned exceptions do not obtain in the instant case. Is the CA
    correct?
    Answer: Yes. Suffice it to say, an employee who voluntarily resigns from employment
    is not entitled to separation pay, except when it is stipulated in the employment contract
    or the CBA, or it is sanctioned by established employer practice or policy. The cited
    exceptions do not obtain in this case. As correctly found by the CA, there was no
    employment contract, much less a CBA, which contained the stipulation that would
    grant separation pay to resigning employees. Neither was there a company practice or
    policy that was proven to exist in the instant case.
    In his attempt to prove that there was a company practice of giving separation pay to
    resigning employees, petitioner presented the payslips of Martinez and Legaspi
    showing that they received separation pay after they resigned. We are not convinced.
    To be considered a company practice, the giving of the benefits should have been done
    over a long period of time, and must be shown to have been consistent and deliberate.
    [25] As records would show, the giving of the monetary benefit by respondents in favor
    of Legaspi and Martinez is merely an isolated instance. As explained by respondents,
    the said benefit was not intended as a separation pay but more of a promise or an
    assurance to Legaspi and Martinez that they would be paid a benefit if they tender their
    resignation. Given respondents' knowledge of Legaspi and Martinez's acts of disloyalty
    and betrayal of trust, respondents opted to give them an alternative way of exit, in lieu of
    termination. Respondents' decision to give Legaspi and Martinez a graceful exit is
    perfectly within their prerogative. It is settled that there is nothing reprehensible or illegal
    when the employer grants the employee a chance to resign and save face rather than
    smear the latter's employment record. (Del Rio vs DPO Philippines Inc., G.R. No.
    211525, December 10, 2018, J. Reyes, Jr.,J.)

    You might also like