Sosito vs. Aguinaldo Dev't Corp.

Facts:

Manuel Sosito, Petitioner, was employed at a logging company in-charge of logging importation.  He went on an indefinite leave on January 16, 1976.  On July 20, 1976, the company through its President announced a Retrenchment Program offering a separation pay for employees who are in active service as of June 30, 1976.  Employees who wished to avail of the Retrenchment Program are to tender their Resignations before July 30, 1976.  The Petitioner accepted this offer and submitted his resignation on July 29, 1976 to avail himself of the gratuity benefits, however his resignation was never acted upon and he did not receive the separation pay.  He complained to the Department of Labor and the Labor Arbiter sustained him.  On appeal to the NLRC, the decision was reversed, hence Petitioner brought the matter to higher courts.

Issue:

WON Sosito was entitled for separation pay under the Retrenchment Program offered by Private Respondent?

Ruling:

We note that under the law then in force the private respondent could have validly reduced its work force because of its financial reverses without the obligation to grant separation pay. This was permitted under the original Article 272(a), of the Labor Code, 7 which was in force at the time. To its credit, however, the company voluntarily offered gratuities to those who would agree to be phased out pursuant to the terms and conditions of its retrenchment program, in recognition of their loyalty and to tide them over their own financial difficulties. The Court feels that such compassionate measure deserves commendation and support but at the same time rules that it should be available only to those who are qualified therefore. We hold that the petitioner is not one of them.

While the Constitution is committed to the policy of social justice and the protection of the working class, it should not be supposed that every labor dispute will be automatically decided in favor of labor. Management also has its own rights which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of simple fair play.

*** It is clear from the memorandum that the offer of separation pay was extended only to those who were in the active service of the company as of June 30, 1976. It is equally clear that the petitioner was not eligible for the promised gratuity as he was not actually working with the company as of the said date. Being on indefinite leave, he was not in the active service of the private respondent although, if one were to be technical, he was still in its employ. Even so, during the period of indefinite leave, he was not entitled to receive any salary or to enjoy any other benefits available to those in the active service.