Paulino Ungos III

Lawyer | Law Professor | Author

Tag: company rules

  • Considered Neither the Intent Nor the Origin of the Gift

    Alvin claimed that on January 31, 2005, he was hired as a Hotel Personnel Planner for the Crewing Department of respondent Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. (PTC), a manning agency acting as agent for foreign principals and engaged in the business of sending Filipino seafarers. Record established that at the start of his employment, Alvin was given PTC’s old company handbook.

    Alvin’s first few years with PTC went well, and he was promoted to Hotel Personnel Officer in 2008. In December 2010, he was seconded by PTC to its offshore processing unit, where he was given the position of “Scheduler.” During his time with PTC, he received several awards.

    However, in 2010, was given a verbal reprimand for a violation of PTC’s policy against receiving “pasalubong“.

    In 2012, PTC revised its Code of Discipline, which indicated more clearly its prohibition against accepting any gift with collective minimum value of Php500.00 and which punished the same with dismissal from employment. Record established that Alvin was served a copy of the revised Code of Discipline.

    On October 9, 2013, Alvin, along with a co-employee Aaron, was caught on the surveillance camera accepting a brown bag from Fred, another employee. It was soon discovered that the brown bag contained two bottles of Jack Daniel’s Whiskey given by Mustafa, a friend and co-employee of Alvin from a previous employment. Alvin was confronted about the incident and he readily admitted that he and Aaron did accept the gift. However, Alvin insisted that it was not a violation of the company policy for it did not come from a crewmember but from an outsider.

    An administrative hearing was held on November 6, 2013 and attended by Alvin. In said hearing, Aaron testified that Alvin told Fred not to hand the gift as there was a surveillance camera in his office and the handing of the gift might be misinterpreted. Aaron further stated that Alvin then advised Fred to proceed to the rear section of the crewing operations office.

    On November 12, 2013, Mustafa sent an email to PTC stating that he gifted Alvin two bottles of whiskey worth US$36.00 as a gesture of goodwill and token of their friendship. Mustafa also stated that personal favor between Alvin and Fred was not the reason for this gift.

    On November 22, 2013, Alvin received a written resolution from PTC informing him of the termination of his employment. PTC also terminated the employment of Aaron.

    On January 30, 2014, Alvin filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter.

    Did PTC validly dismiss Alvin from employment?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Alvin was validly dismissed by PTC.

    The Court found that Alvin’s dismissal was anchored on his violation of a specific provision in PTC’s Code of Discipline which punished two separate acts:

    • offering or accepting, whether directly or indirectly, any gift with a collective value of Php500.00 or more, regardless of who it came from; and
    • acceptance by an employee of any gift — regardless of value — from a crew member, ex-crew member, or representative of a crew member.

    The Court noted from the said provision that a violation, even on the first instance, merited the penalty of dismissal from employment.

    In the present case, Alvin admitted to receiving a gift during his tenure with PTC. However, he contended that:

    • he did not violate PTC’s Code of Discipline since he did not receive the gift from a crew member, ex-crew member, or representative of a crew member; and
    • the provision was vague, unreasonable, and unfair.

    Alvin argued that an analysis of the said provision would reveal that the same was utterly vague, without any qualification as to from whom the gift should come from and for what consideration. Alvin pointed out that the governing principles behind the PTC provision did not take into account the intent or the origin of the gift. Alvin concluded that the subject provision should have been declared to be unreasonable and unfair.

    The Court did not agree, for it determined that Alvin’s act clearly fell under the first act punished by the subject provision in PTC’s Code of Discipline. According to the Court, Alvin received a gift with a value of $36.00, which was clearly above the Php500.00 threshold under the PTC provision. The Court further stated that the subject provision in PTC’s Code of Conduct was not vague and unreasonable. Said the Court: The fact that it did not specify the origin of the gift or the purpose for which the gift was given did not automatically mean that the PTC provision was vague. It simply meant that this “no gift” policy of PTC was absolute, that is, the origin or the purpose of the gift was irrelevant. In simple terms, the mere act of offering or receiving a gift constituted a violation.

    Significantly, the Court took into account PTC’s rationale for the subject provision. According to PTC, in view of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration’s strict requirements and the severity of the corresponding penalty imposed at the first instance, firm implementation of company rules and regulations was indispensable. PTC added that it was only just and reasonable to adopt measures to ensure that any act of its officials, employees, and representatives that would merit the cancellation of its license be imposed the supreme penalty of dismissal.

    The Court stated that company policies and regulations, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, are generally valid and binding on the parties and must be complied with until finally revised or amended.1 Aparente, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117652, April 27, 2000. Furthermore, a company’s management prerogatives shall be upheld so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements.2 Aparente, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 117652, April 27, 2000. In this regard, the Court ruled that the dismissal of Alvin which hinged on a provision that prescribed dismissal even on the first instance of violation, should therefore be upheld.

    In this case, the Court ruled that PTC was well within its management prerogative in terminating Alvin’s employment upon a finding of violation of its company rules. The Court stated that Alvin’s actions revealed that he was aware of his violation of PTC’s rule. By his own admission, he instructed Fred to give the gift to Aaron in the far end of the office, as he knew that there was a surveillance camera in their work area. He thus knew that he was at risk of getting caught doing an act he should not do. Despite this, he still received the gift and did not return the same to Mustafa or even turned over the same to the Human Resources Department as instructed by PTC’s Code of Discipline. For the Court, the acts of Alvin revealed willful misconduct or disobedience of company rules that further justified PTC’s decision to terminate his employment.

    Further reading:

    • De Leon v. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No. 232194, June 19, 2019.

  • Do Your Employees Know Your Company Policies?

    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 Vilma Malunes, G.R. No. 198093, July 28, 2014.

  • 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.