3/30/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character." As the Court declared: Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial assistance, or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice. A contrary rule would, as the petitioner correctly argues, have the effect of rewarding rather than punishing the erring employee for his offense. And we do not agree that the punishment is his dismissal only and that the separation pay has nothing to do with the wrong he has committed. Of course it has. Indeed, if the employee who steals from the company is granted separation pay even as he is validly dismissed, it is not unlikely that he will commit a similar offense in his next employment because he thinks he can expect a like leniency if he is again found out. This kind of misplaced compassion is not going to do labor in general any good as it will encourage the infiltration of its ranks by those who do not deserve the protection and concern of the Constitution. The policy of social justice is not intended to countenance wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. At best[,] it may mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone the offense. Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege. Social justice cannot be permitted to be refuge of scoundrels any more than can equity be an impediment to the punishment of the guilty. Those who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands are clean and their motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor. This great policy of our Constitution is not meant for the protection of those who have proved they are not worthy of it, like the workers who have tainted the cause of labor with the blemishes of their own character.[41] (Emphases and underscoring supplied) Applying the foregoing principles, the Court, in the case of Daabay v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc.,[42] disallowed the grant of separation pay to an employee who was found guilty of stealing the company's property. Likewise, in Manila Water Company, [43] the Court similarly denied the award of separation pay to the employee who was found responsible for the loss of the water meters in flagrant violation of the company's policy. Indeed, equity as an exceptional extenuating circumstance does not favor, nor may it be used to reward, the indolent or the wrongdoer for that matter. This Court will not allow a party, in guise of equity, to benefit from his own fault.[44] Considering the foregoing, the CA erred in awarding separation pay to Cordero "as a measure of compassionate justice." That Cordero had been employed with HSTC for twenty-four (24) years does not serve to mitigate his offense nor should it be considered in meting out the appropriate penalty therefor. In fact, it may be reasonably argued that the infraction that he https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65989 5/9