The employer hired 2 sales ladies, who were assigned to a particular branch office. One day, the employer discovered that proceeds from the sales for two particular days were missing in the said branch. Upon investigation, it was found that the loss of the money was a result of an inside job. The employer then required the said employees to explain in writing why they should not be dismissed for having violated a company policy of prohibiting sales proceeds to be kept in the cash register. The employees submitted their written explanations, where they both denied the existence, and the knowledge of the existence, of such company policy. Despite this, they were dismissed. Thus, they filed a case for Illegal Dismissal against their employer.
The Supreme Court in this case ruled in favor of the employees. It said that the employer must show by substantial evidence:
“1) the existence of the subject company policy;
“2) the dismissed employee must have been properly informed of said policy;
“3) actions or omissions on the part of the dismissed employee manifesting deliberate refusal or wilful disregard of said company policy; and
“4) such actions or omissions have occurred repeatedly.”
With regard to the first and second points, although the employer claimed that the said company policy has existed for some time via a memorandum, the Court found that there was nothing in the record to indicate that the employees were informed of it. According to the Court, the employer could have easily produced a copy of the said memorandum bearing the signatures of the employees to show that, indeed, they have been notified of the existence of said company rule and that they have received, read, and understood the same. It could likewise have simply called some of its employees to testify on the rule’s existence, dissemination, and strict implementation. However, the record also show that it did not do so.
Since the employer was not able to show a clear, valid, and legal cause for the employment termination, the Court thus declared the employees as illegally dismissed.
Thoughts:
A few weeks ago, I mentioned a case similar to this one in that the employee also argued that he did not know that there was a parking policy in his company (See Have You Read Your Employee Code of Conduct?). In other words, both employees assert that they didn’t know that there was a certain company policy that governed their actions.
Note, however, the distinctions. In this present case, the employees would not have known of the existence of the specific company policy, simply because it was not properly disseminated to them. In the earlier case, the company policy on parking was clearly written down on the tickets that the employee used. This is why the Court did not accept the employee’s defense of lack of knowledge of the same.
Further reading:
- FLP Enterprises Inc.-Francesco Shoes/Emilio Francisco B. Pajaro v. Ma.
Joeralyn D. Dela Cruz and VilmaMalunes , G.R. No. 198093, July 28, 2014.
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
