Manuel Sosito vs

Aguinaldo Development Corporation

G.R. No. L-48926
14 December 1987

FACTS OF THE CASE

Manuel Sosito was employed in 1964 by
private respondent, a logging company
Sosito was in charge of logging
importation
He has a monthly salary of Php675.00
With the consent of the company, he went
on indefinite leave on 16 January 1976

 20 July 1976 ~> Aguinaldo Development

Corporation announced a retrenchment
program and offered separation pays to its
employees in the active service as of 30
June 1976 who would tender their
resignation not later than 31 July 1976
Sosito submitted his resignation on 29
July 1976 to avail himself of the gratuity
benefits promised

 The resignation was not acted upon and

Sosito never received the sepration pay
he expected
A complaint was filed to the Department of
Labor where he was sustained by the
Labor Arbiter and the Company was
ordered to pay Php4,387.50 representing
his salary for six and a half months

 On Appeal to the National Labor Relations

Commission (NLRC), the decision was
reversed holding that the petitioner was
not covered by the retrenchment program

ISSUE
Whether or not Manuel Sosito is entitled to
separation pay under the retrenchment
program of private respondent Aguinaldo
Development Corporation

HELD/RULING
The Court held that the petitioner was not
qualified to avail of the benefits because at
the time Sosito submitted his resignation,
he was not in the active service and he
cannot just do as he pleases to the
detriment of the company
Petitioner at the time he submitted his
resignation was in voluntary indefinite
leave

 The memorandum clearly states that the

offer of separation pay is to be extended
only to those who were in the active
service as of 30 June 1976
It is also clear that Sosito was not eligible
for the promised gratuity as he was not
actually working with the company as of
the said date

 Technically speaking, he was still

employed but during the period of
indefinite leave, he was not entitled to
receive salary or to enjoy any other
benefits available to those in active
service
Petitioner wants to enjoy the best of two
worlds at the expense of the company

 Being on indefinite leave from the

company, he could seek and try other
employment and remain there if he should
find it acceptable, but if not, he could go
back to his former work and argue that he
still had the right to return as he was only
on leave

 There was no claim that Sosito was

temporarily laid off or forced to go on
leave
Records show that he voluntarily sought
the indefinite leave which was granted

 The Court expressed that labor disputes

aren't necessarily immediately tipped in
favor of labor
Management also has its own rights,
which must also be afforded the same
protection as that of labor

As a rule...
The Court held that:
"Justice is in every case for the deserving, to
be dispensed in the light of establish'ed facts
and the applicable law and doctrine`

The End