15. Tirazona vs. Philippine Techno Service GR. No.

169712, January 20, 2009Facts: Petitioner Tirazona being the Administrative Manager of thePhilippine EDS Techno Service, Inc. was a managerialemployee who held a position of trust and confidence; thatafter PET officer/ directors called her attention to her improper handling of a situation involving a rank and fileemployee, she claimed that she was denied due process for which she demanded Php 2,000,000.00. Thus, she admittedreading a confidential letter addressed to PET regarding her case and that she was validly terminated from her employment on the ground that she willfully breached thetrust and confidence reposed in her by her employer. Thecourt concludes that Tirazona has given PET more enough reasons to distrust her. The court denied her petition andaffirmed the decision of the CA. Petitioner not contented; file a motion for reconsiderationarguing that the court failed to consider her length service toPET in affirming her termination from employment. Shepleaded that she be awarded separation pay and retirementbenefits out of humanitarian consideration. The court denied her motion for reconsideration withFINALITY for lack of merit. Hence, the petitioner filedanother Motion for Reconsideration for the second timeIssues:Whether or not a second motion for reconsideration can beentertained by the Supreme CourtWhether or not petitioner is entitled to separation pay andretirement benefits for just termination.Held:On the first issue, the court ruled that Sec. 2 of Rule 52Rules of court explicitly states that no second motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the sameparty be entertained. Accordingly, a second motion for reconsideration is prohibited pleading which shall not be allowed,except for extraordinarily persuasive reasons only after anexpress leave shall have first been obtained. However, in thiscase, the court failed to find such any extraordinarily persuasivereason to allow Tirazonas second motion for reconsideration.With regards to the second issue the general rule is thatseparation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justiceonly in those instances where the employee is validly dismissedfor cause other than those serious misconduct or those reflectingon his moral character. However the court contends that thiswould tolerate the employee who steals from the company isgranted separation pay even as he is validly dismissed, it is notunlikely that he will commit a similar offense in his nextemployment because he thinks he can expect leniency. Thus,her attitude towards her employer was a clear inconsistent withher position of trust and confidence. Her poor character becameeven more evident when she read what was supposed to be aconfidential letter of the legal counsel of PET to PET officer anddirectors. In accordance to separation pay, it is valid thatTirazona is not entitled to separation pay. With regards to her retirement benefits, it is also denied.Wherefore, the Motion for Leave to File a SecondMotion for Reconsideration is denied and NOTED WITHOUTACTION