An employee asked permission to leave the office so that she could pay her due car loan amortization and avoid incurring a penalty for late payment. Even though her employer refused, she still left the office to pursue her errand. Her employment was terminated as a result.
Here, the Supreme Court took her side because the employer failed to establish that her act was sufficient to justify the dismissal. There was a further finding that the employer failed to observe due process in the said dismissal.
In this case, the employer argued that she defied the orders disallowing her from leaving the office early. It then concluded that her act constituted serious misconduct and willful breach of the trust reposed in her. The Court, however, did not agree:
- The employee left for good reason. Due to the urgency of the situation, her act of leaving the office to pay her loan could not have been a serious misconduct on her part.
- Her leaving the office was found to be a mere isolated act. Thus, it can hardly be be considered as willful defiance.
- Although the employer alleged that she disrespected or manifested unpleasant behavior upon learning of the disapproval, the same was uncorroborated. Thus, it was not able to show that the breach of trust reposed upon her was willful or done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse.
Thoughts:
The case was silent on the nature of the work activities during that day. Had it been a day so busy that all hands should be on deck, the result, I reckon, would have been different.
Also, had the unpleasant behavior been sufficiently proved, then the case would have had a different outcome.
Finally, what if, on top of the earlier factors, the twin notice requirements were met?
In other words, the case did not provide that all instances of employees leaving their posts would merit a favorable decision. Certain circumstances could be present, and they could add a significant dynamic in (or against) the employees’ favor in the case.
Further reading:
- Micah Motor, Inc, Florentino Querol and
John Hernandez v.Janneth B. Tenorio, G.R. No. 190774, July 9, 2014.
