Bernie was hired in November 2007 as a nursing attendant at MPI.
On 17 March 2016, the mother of a patient appeared at MPI’s facility, demanding to see her son because earlier that day, she received a text message from someone who claimed to be a former staff of MPI, stating that the patient was being subjected to physical assault by MPI employees.
However, upon checking the patient, no sign of physical injury was found on him.
Consequently, the patient’s mother called the informant via speaker phone, and as she did, MPI nurses situated nearby recognized Bernie’s voice on the other end.
MPI reviewed the relevant closed circuit television (CCTV) footage and discovered Bernie flipping through patients’ charts and copying information, which he placed inside his pocket.
MPI then issued a Memorandum dated 9 July 2016 requiring Bernie to explain his side.
In his letter dated 9 July 2016, Bernie denied contacting the patient’s mother and alleged that he was merely copying the vital signs of patients for endorsement.
On 5 September 2016, MPI terminated Bernie’s employment for maliciously relaying false information to the patient’s relatives.
Bernie then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against MPI.
Was Bernie’s dismissal from employment based on a valid cause?
In Metro Psychiatry, Inc., v. Llorente1G.R. No. 245258, February 5, 2020, the Supreme Court found that the dismissal of Bernie was valid.
The Court reiterated the principle that misconduct is the “transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.”2Sy v. Neat, Inc., G.R. No. 213748, November 27, 2017 For misconduct to be a just cause for dismissal, the following requisites must concur: “(a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent.”3Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. v. KMM-Katipunan, G.R. No. 221493, August 2, 2017, 815 PHIL 425-439
In the present case, the Court considered the following pieces of evidence:
- the CCTV footage where Bernie was seen copying from the records and pocketing the paper where he wrote the information;
- MPI’s rule prohibiting employees to get hold of a patient’s personal information; and
- the written statements of MPI nurses who recognized Bernie’s voice on the speaker phone as the latter talked to the patient’s mother.
According to the Court, Bernie’s suspicious actuations of copying a patient’s personal information and using it to malign MPI by relaying a false narrative were indicative of his wrongful intent. His actions comprised serious misconduct because as a nursing attendant, he had access to private and confidential information of MPI’s patients, but he did not only illicitly copy the personal information of a patient of MPI, he also used the information to fulfill a deceitful purpose. The Court added that an unauthorized use of a patient’s personal information destroys a medical facility’s reputation in the industry and in this case, could have even exposed MPI to a lawsuit. Coupled with the statements from MPI nurses who had no ill motive against Bernie, the Court found that Bernie’s “connection to the incident catapulted from a mere speculation to reasonable certainty.”
For the Court, MPI was justified in terminating Bernie’s employment.
Further reading:
- Metro Psychiatry, Inc., petitioner, vs. Bernie J. Llorente, G.R. No. 245258, February 5, 2020.
