SOCIAL JUSTICE

Security Bank Savings Corp. v. Charles Singson

Gr. No. 214230, Feb 10, 2016,

Facts: Singson was hired in 1985 by Premiere Development Bank,( now Security
Bank Savings Corp.) as messenger. He held various positions in the company until
he was appointed as Acting Assistant Branch Manager and then as Customer
Service Operations Head (CSOH) tasked with the safe keeping of its checkbooks and
other bank forms. On July 2008, Singson received a show-cause memorandum
charging him with violation of the bank’s Code of Conduct when he mishandled
various checkbooks under his custody. T h e SBSC’s Investigation
C o m m i t t e e a l s o f o u n d 4 1 checkbooks were also missing. Singson readily
admitted that he allowed Pinero (the QC branch manager), to bring out the check
books from the bank’s premises and other bank forms since Pinero was a senior officer
with lengthy tenure and good reputation. Pending investigation, he was reassigned to
Pedro Gil branch and then after to Sampaloc, Manila branch. Out of dismay for the
frequent transfers, he tendered his resignation but before the effectivity of his
resignation the SBSC rejected the resignation and terminated him on the ground of
habitual neglect of duties. Singson filed complaint for illegal dismissal and claims for
back wages and attorney’s fees. Rulings from LA to CA found the dismissal valid but
allowed as a measure of social justice the award of separation pay.

Issue: Is the award of separation pay, as a measure of social justice, valid despite the
finding of a valid dismissal?

Ruling : In this case, NO, SC held that the award of separation pay is not warranted
in this case. Separation pay is warranted when the cause of termination is not
attributable to the employee’s fault such as those enumerated in ART 295 and 296
of the Labor Code. Singson is a custodian of accountable bank forms and as such w a s
m a n d a t e d t o s t r i c t l y c o m p l y w i t h t h e m o n i t o r i n g procedure and disposition
thereof as a security measure to avoid high risk to the bank. Singon’s long years
of service and clean employment record will not justify the award of separation
pay since his violation (gross and habitual neglect of duty) reflects a r egrettable
lack of loyal ty and worse betrayal of the company. If an employee’s length of
service is to be regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of dismissal,
such gesture will actually become a prize for disloyalty, distorting the
meani ng of Social Jus tice and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse
the ranks of undesirableness. The constitutional policy to provide full
pr otec ti o n to l abor i s no t me ant to be an i ns tr ume nt to oppress employers.