Laura was hired to join ProHealth’s audit team in 2007. She was later promoted to Finance Officer.
On November 26, 2007, Laura’s superior ordered her to give three thousand pesos from the training funds to Prohealth’s District Business Manager, to serve as cash advance.
On November 27, 2007, Prohealth issued a show cause memorandum for Laura’s failure to release the cash advance. Laura was also relieved of her duties and reassigned to the Office of the Personnel and Administration Manager.
In her explanation, Laura alleged that when the District Business Manager saw that she was busy receiving cash sales from another District Business Manager, he told her that he would just return the next day to collect his cash advance. When he told her that the cash advance was for car repairs, Laura told him to get the cash from his revolving fund, which she would reimburse after the repairs were done. Prohealth was dissatisfied with her explanation and transferred her to another office.
On December 3, 2007, Laura was invited to a fact-finding investigation, which was held on December 10, 2007, where Laura was again asked to explain her actions.
On December 17, 2007, she was handed a notice of termination effective December 31, 2007 for disobeying an order of her superior.
Laura filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Prohealth.
The Office of the Labor Arbiter declared the illegality of Laura’s dismissal from employment. This ruling was affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission. However, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the Commission and ruled the validity of Laura’s dismissal from employment. The Court of Appeals viewed Laura failure to comply with her superior’s order, an instance of arrogance and hostility, that, in turn, warranted her dismissal.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Laura insisted that she was illegally dismissed from employment. According to Laura, she believed in good faith that the District Business Manager would just claim his cash advance the day after he tried to claim it and that there was nothing in her actions that would prove that she intended to disobey or defy respondent Prohealth’s order.
Was the dismissal of Laura valid?
The Supreme Court declared that Laura was illegally dismissed from employment.
The Court stated that under the Labor Code of the Philippines an employer may terminate the services of an employee who commits willful disobedience of the lawful orders of the employer. The Court explained that for disobedience to be considered as just cause for termination, two (2) requisites must concur:
- the employee’s assailed conduct must have been wilful or intentional; and
- the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he [or she] had been engaged to discharge.
For disobedience to be willful, the Court added, it must be characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee’s act inconsistent with proper subordination. The conduct complained of must also constitute harmful behavior against the business interest or person of his [or her] employer. Thus, it is implied in every case of willful disobedience that the erring employee obtains undue advantage detrimental to the business interest of the employer.
In the present case, the Court found that Laura, as Finance Officer, was instructed by her superior to give a cash advance of three thousand pesos to the District Branch Manager on November 26, 2007. For the Court, such instruction or order was reasonable, lawful, made known to Laura, and pertained to her duties.
The Court then tried to determine whether Laura intentionally and willfully violated such order as to amount to insubordination.
The Court ruled in the negative.
The Court found that when the District Business Manager went to collect the money from Laura, he was told to return the next day as she was still busy. When Laura found out that the money was to be used for a car tune-up, she suggested to the District Business Manager to just get the money from his mobilization fund and that she just would reimburse it after.
Diverging from the ruling of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that no ill will existed between the District Business Manager and Laura. According to the Supreme Court, Laura’s failure to immediately give the money to the District Business Manager was not the result of a perverse mental attitude but was merely because she was busy at the time. Neither did she profit from her failure to immediately give the cash advance for the car tune-up nor did respondents suffer financial damage by her failure to comply. For the Court, the severe penalty of dismissal was not commensurate to her infraction. Laura was illegally dismissed from employment.
Further reading:
- Malcaba v. ProHealth Pharma Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 209085 , June 6, 2018.
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
