Social justice: Never the refuge of scoundrels
One of the best decision writers in the Supreme Court, aside from the late justice Jose P. Laurel and chief justice Enrique M. Fernando, was associate justice Isagani Cruz, who penned the famous decision in PLDT vs. NLRC, GR 80608, on August 23, 1988. I lectured on this yesterday for some 200 Law graduates who are taking the Bar examinations next month.
This was a case about a female PLDT employee who admitted having received a bribe from two women who wanted to expedite the installation of their telephone connections in the 1980s. PLDT management dismissed her for breach of trust. She accepted her fate but pleaded for separation pay. She filed a case but the NLRC held that the management was right in dismissing her. She went to the Supreme Court and stating that she accepted the dismissal but pleaded for separation pay in the interest of social justice owing to her long years of service. The case was assigned to Cruz.
Cruz wrote: "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 the refuge of scoundrels any more than can equity be an impediment to the punishment of the guilty." Meaning that a poor man cannot use his poverty as a shield against the full force of the law.
This is a very good principle. I hope the rich should also suffer the same fate, if they commit the same wrong. Anyway, Cruz continued: "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." These are very strong words and would, of course, ring with much eloquence.
The law is very strict even to the poor who commit fraud and dishonesty against their employers. Cruz says: "We hold that henceforth, separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct, or those reflecting on his moral character. 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." This is now the doctrine and employers are very happy about this.
It is the Supreme Court's view that a contrary rule would reward rather than punish the erring employee. And the High Tribunal feared that; "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." I just hope these very stringent dictum would also apply to the rich, powerful, and mighty.
- Latest
