3/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly committed against HSTC, i.e., theft of invaluable company property, demonstrates the highest degree of ingratitude to an institution that has been the source of his livelihood for twenty-four (24) years, constitutive of disloyalty and betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed upon him.[45] Indeed, HSTC's full trust and confidence in him, coupled with the fact that he occupied a position that allowed him full access to HSTC's property, aggravated the offense. In Manila Water Company,[46] the Court refused to take into account the errant employee's length of service of more than twenty (20) years, considering that his violation reflects "a regrettable lack of loyalty and worse, betrayal of the company,"[47] viz.: Although long years of service might generally be considered for the award of separation benefits or some form of financial assistance to mitigate the effects of termination, this case is not the appropriate instance for generosity under the Labor Code nor under our prior decisions. The fact that private respondent served petitioner for more than twenty years with no negative record prior to his dismissal, in our view of this case, does not call for such award of benefits, since his violation reflects a regrettable lack of loyalty 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 meaning of social justice and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of undesirables.[48] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Further, it would appear that the offense for which Cordero was validly dismissed in 2016 was not his first offense, thereby negating the CA's finding[49] that he had no previous derogatory record. The fact that Cordero had been given Notices to Explain in 2003 and another in 2013[50] for entirely different offenses only proves that he had committed infractions against HSTC even prior to the present incident of oil pilferage. Moreover, while it is true that Cordero remained in the employ of HSTC until his dismissal in 2016, HSTC's right as an employer to call out, investigate, and eventually, dismiss him for just cause must still be recognized. On this score, it must be pointed out that the last offense that Cordero committed against HSTC constitutes Serious Misconduct, which resulted in the latter's loss of trust and confidence in him. Hence, the penalty of dismissal cannot be considered as "too harsh" under the circumstances. Having established that Cordero's employment was terminated for just cause and that he was therefore validly dismissed, as well as the fact that the infractions he committed against HSTC involve moral turpitude and constitute Serious Misconduct, the award of separation pay in his favor is devoid of basis in fact and in law. Accordingly, the same must be deleted. WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 244144 is GRANTED, while the petition in G.R. No. 244210 is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated April 20, 2018 and the Resolution dated January 14, 2019 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 151737 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION deleting the award of separation pay in favor of Calvin Jaballa Cordero. The rest of the Decision stands. SO ORDERED. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65989 6/9