3/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this case, Cordero's petition in G.R. No. 244210 is anchored on his factual allegations that no just cause existed for HSTC and Esguerra to dismiss him validly from employment, as he continuously denies participation in the oil pilferage that transpired during the significant voyages in 2015. Considering that questions of fact are generally proscribed in a Rule 45 petition, and that although there are jurisprudentially recognized exceptions[35] to this rule, none exists in the present case. The correctness of the labor tribunals' factual finding that he had, in fact, participated in the oil pilferage while navigating at sea, which resulted in losses for HSTC, as affirmed by the CA, is upheld. In this regard, it deserves mentioning that factual findings of quasi judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court, more so when they coincide with those of the LA, as in this case. Accordingly, in view of the existence of a just cause for termination, Cordero's dismissal was valid and his petition in G.R. No. 244210 is denied for lack of merit. That being said, the Court now determines whether or not the CA correctly awarded separation pay in favor of Cordero "as a measure of compassionate justice" in the exercise of its "equity jurisdiction,"[36] which is the issue in G.R. No. 244144. In Manila Water Company v. Del Rosario (Manila Water Company),[37] the Court succinctly explained: As a general rule, an employee who has been dismissed for any of the just causes enumerated under Article 282 of the Labor Code is not entitled to a separation pay. Section 7, Rule I, Book VI of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Labor Code provides: Sec. 7. Termination of employment by employer. — The just causes for terminating the services of an employee shall be those provided in Article 282 of the Code. The separation from work of an employee for a just cause does not entitle him to the termination pay provided in the Code, without prejudice, however, to whatever rights, benefits and privileges he may have under the applicable individual or collective agreement with the employer or voluntary employer policy or practice. In exceptional cases, however, the Court has granted separation pay to a legally dismissed employee as an act of "social justice" or on "equitable grounds." In both instances, it is required that the dismissal (1) was not for serious misconduct; and (2) did not reflect on the moral character underscoring supplied) of the employee.[38] (Emphases and Hence, in the cases of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. NLRC[39] and subsequently, Toyota Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association v. NLRC,[40] the Court stressed that "separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in the https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65989 4/9