Paulino Ungos III

Lawyer | Law Professor | Author

Blog

  • Have You Read Your Employee Code of Conduct?

    You should.

    This could make or break your working relationship with your employer.

    Case in point: an employee was dismissed for having violated the company rules on parking privileges. A parking issue…imagine that.

    The employee worked as a Wellness Center Assistant of a hospital. Said hospital provided free/discounted parking perks for its patients via special parking tickets, while Wellness Center Assistants claimed these tickets on behalf of the patients.

    What this employee did was that he used the parking privileges, not for the benefit of the patients, but for himself. Anyway, the employer found out about this. After an investigation, it dismissed the said employee.

    One of the employee’s defenses was that he did not know that the parking privileges were just for the patients. He even claims: “[A]ll that he knew was that, to be able to get a discount on their expensive parking, he needed to get a validation… Without hesitation, [the hospital] always provided him with it. Because of this, he thought that it was alright to get a validation even if he was an employee of the hospital.”

    The Court did not accept such defense. In ruling for the validity of the dismissal:

    1. It noticed that the parking tickets clearly stated that the privilege was only limited to the patients of the hospital. The employee was reasonably expected to have read those terms and conditions, considering the fact that he used them several times.
    2. Even if he was not able to read those terms, this only exposed his inefficiency with regard to his work.
    3. And since the records also showed that the employer already afforded him consideration for his several infractions (there were at least 4), this should have prompted him to be more careful in his actions.

    Thoughts:

    So employees, what can we gather from this?

    You guessed it. Read and understand your employee code of conduct.

    1. We are all expected to know the rules. Claims that we are unaware of them will be considered as unbelievable.
    2. Well, you can still mention this as your defense. But if this case would serve as an example, then you’ll just be painting an image of your inefficiency. Inefficiency, of course, is not acceptable to any employer, especially if you are in its employ for the last several years.
    3. As employees, we are expected to be aware the rights and privileges of our employer’s customers/clients. Needless to state, we are not to use them for our own gain.

    Further reading:

    • St. Luke’s Medical Center v. Daniel Quebral and St. Luke’s Medical Center Employees’ Association – Alliance Of Filipino Workers (SLMCEA-AFW), G.R. No. 193324, July 23, 2014.

  • Consider the Context of the Quitclaim

    The employee, a university faculty member, filed a case against his employer for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter decided in his favor and awarded reinstatement, full backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees. The employer could not reinstate the employee, but it still appealed this decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Later on, however, the employee executed a quitclaim in favor of the employer.

    Could the employee be estopped now from pursuing his claims for accrued wages under the ruling?

    Is your answer a yes? …Not so fast, though.

    In this case, what happened was that the employee received his retirement pay from the employer when the appeal was still pending. Now, although the NLRC initially affirmed (with modification) the decision of the Labor Arbiter, it reversed the same when it resolved a motion for reconsideration. In other words, NLRC held that the employee’s execution of the receipt and quitclaim respecting his benefits under the retirement plan estopped him from pursuing other claims arising from his employer-employee relationship with the University.

    The Supreme Court rendered a decision in favor of the employee. It ruled that the execution of the quitclaim was not a settlement of the employee’s claim for accrued salaries. The Court said:

    “We agree with the petitioner.


    “The text of the receipt and quitclaim was clear and straightforward, and it was to the effect that the sum received by the petitioner represented ‘full payment of benefits … pursuant to the Employee’s retirement plan.’ As such, both the NLRC and the CA should have easily seen that the quitclaim related only to the settlement of the retirement benefits, which benefits could not be confused with the reliefs related to the complaint for illegal dismissal.

    “Worthy to stress is that retirement is of a different species from the reliefs awarded to an illegally dismissed employee. Retirement is a form of reward for an employee’s loyalty and service to the employer, and is intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years of his life, and to lessen the burden of worrying about his financial support or upkeep. In contrast, the reliefs awarded to an illegally dismissed employee are in recognition of the continuing employer-employee relationship that has been severed by the employer without just or authorized cause, or without compliance with due process.”

    Further reading:

    • Crisanto F. Castro, Jr. v. Ateneo De Naga University, Fr. Joel Tabora and Mr. Edwin Bernal, G.R. No. 175293, July 23, 2014.

  • Sleep Deprivation and Leukemia

    An employee was assigned at a pharmacy as a security guard. Years later, he was diagnosed with Acute Myelogenous Leukemia, and less than a year thereafter, he passed away.

    The Social Security Commission (SSC) granted the Social Security System (SSS) Temporary Total Disability (TTD) benefits, Permanent Partial Disability (PPD) benefits, and Death with Funeral Benefits to his beneficiaries. It, however, denied the claim for Employment Compensation (EC) death benefits on the ground that “there is no causal relationship between Acute Myelogenous Leukemia to [his] job as a security guard.”

    His widow appealed the SSC decision, and her case went all the way to the Supreme Court. She basically argued that employment of her husband regularly required him to take either straight 12 or 24 hours of duty, with only a 24-hour rest period on the last day of each month. He was thus constantly sleep-deprived and his immune system became weak. Eventually, he succumbed to leukemia. She concluded that the risk of contracting acute myelogenous leukemia was increased by her husband’s work or working conditions.

    The Court did not agree. In justifying the denial of her petition, it adopted, among others, the findings of the Court of Appeals.

    Under the law, for the sickness and the resulting disability or death to be compensable, the sickness must be the result of a listed occupational disease. Otherwise, proof must be shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working conditions.

    Leukemia is considered as an occupational disease if the nature of employment involved exposure to X-rays, ionizing particles of radium or other radioactive substances or other forms of radiant energy, or it is contracted by operating room personnel due to exposure to anesthetics.

    In this case, other than the widow’s allegation that her husband suffered sleep deprivation due to his work schedule and which then weakened his immune system, she has not provided proof that, as a security guard, her husband was exposed to cancer-causing chemicals in the place/s where he was assigned.

    Record shows that she has only presented a copy of a medical abstract and of her husband’s daily time records in an attempt to prove that his employment increased his chances of contracting leukemia.

    However, the Court did not find anything in the documents that would help them infer or conclude that indeed, her husband’s risk of contracting leukemia increased by reason of his work conditions.

    Further reading:

    • Rosemarie Esmarialino v. Employees’ Compensation Commission, Social Security System (SSS) and Jimenez Protective and Security Agency, G.R. No. 192352. July 23, 2014.

  • 3 Things a Time Record Should Have

    The employer in this case was defending against a claim for unpaid wages. It argued that the wages of the employees have been paid, but also mentioned that the daily time records of the said employees got lost because they were stolen.

    The Supreme Court, however, saw this as a lame excuse. Even if this angle was set aside, the Court said that “it would nonetheless be difficult if not impossible to validate and reconcile (the employer’s) documentary evidence and unilateral claims of payment, if the official payroll and daily time records are not taken into account.” It thus ruled in favor of the employees.

    Thoughts:

    There was one part of the decision that I also found significant. It was that part where the Court stated:

    “What ‘daily time records’ petitioners refer to in this Petition pertain to the supposed attendance record of several of the respondents, which however do not contain the latter’s respective signatures and those of their superiors. They appear to be incomplete as well; indeed, some are barely readable. They can hardly be considered proof sufficient enough for this Court to consider.”

    If you’re an employer, and if you want to learn from this case, then your time record should at least have the following, among others: 

    • signatures – not only of the employees, but also of their superiors;
    • complete information – the dates, times, number of hours, and other pieces of information that show an employee’s attendance in the office for work; and
    • readability – in order for anyone to make sense of the information contained therein.

    Further reading:

    • Rose Hana Angeles, etc., et al. v. Ferdinand M. Bucad, et al. G.R. No. 196249. July 21, 2014.

  • Leaving Your Post and Serious Misconduct or Willful Disobedience

    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.

  • Teachers Must Display Exemplary Behavior

    “[T]eachers must adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency. There is no dichotomy of morality. A teacher, both in his official and personal conduct, must display exemplary behavior. He must freely and willingly accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed irksome by ordinary citizens. In other words, the personal behavior of teachers, in and outside the classroom, must be beyond reproach.“

    The foregoing principles were applied by the Supreme Court in the case of Santos v. Hagonoy Institute1G.R. No. 115795, March 6, 1998, the facts of which are as follows:

    Jose, a married man, was employed as a teacher by the Hagonoy Institute,
    Inc. Likewise working as a teacher in the same school was Arlene, also married.

    In the course of their employment, the couple fell in love. Thereafter, rumors regarding the couple’s relationship spread, especially among the faculty members and school officials.

    Concerned about the rumors, Hagonoy Institute advised Arlene to take a leave of absence which she ignored, as she continued to report for work. Consequently, she was barred from reporting for work and was not allowed to enter the school premises, thereby effectively dismissing her from her employment. Meanwhile, Hagonoy Institute set up a committee to investigate the veracity of the rumors. After two weeks of inquiry, the committee rendered its report confirming the illicit relationship between Jose and Arlene. Thus, Jose was dismissed from his employment.

    Unable to accept such verdict, Jose filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

    Can the relationship between Jose and Arlene be considered as immorality to constitute just cause for dismissal?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the illicit relationship between Jose and Arlene
    is immoral, a serious offense, and therefore, a valid cause for his dismissal.

    The Court stated that teachers are important to society in that they are given substitute and special parental authority under our laws. Thus, teachers must adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency. There is no dichotomy of morality. A teacher, both in his official and personal conduct, must display exemplary behavior. He must freely and willingly accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed irksome by ordinary citizens. In other words, the personal behavior of teachers, in and outside the classroom, must be beyond reproach. Consequently, when a teacher engages in extra-marital relationship, especially when the parties are both married, such behavior amounts to immorality, justifying his termination from employment.

    In the present case, the Court found that the gravity and seriousness of Jose’s offense stemmed from his being a married man and at the same time a teacher. Jose served as an example to his pupils, especially during their formative years2Chiang Kai Shek School v. Court of Appeals, 172 SCRA 389 (1989) and stands in loco parentis to them.3Bagayo v. Marave, 86 SCRA 389 (1978) However, his act of having an extra-marital affair was an affront to the sanctity of marriage, which is a basic institution of society. As Jose’s extra-marital affair with Arlene was established, the Supreme Court ruled that his dismissal from employment was justified.

    Further reading:

    • Santos, Jr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 115795, March 6, 1998.