Paulino Ungos III

Lawyer | Law Professor | Author

Tag: serious misconduct

  • But the Employee Assaulted a Co-Worker Inside Company Premises

    On September 15, 2008, the employer, a rent-a-car company, hired Reynaldo for the position of driver for transporting tourists to their destination.

    Reynaldo was in the employ of the company for seven years. He had no derogatory record. However, on the night of February 12, 2015, Reynaldo was involved in misconduct for the first time in his career.

    On such date, Reynaldo engaged in a heated argument with a co-employee, Felix. According to Reynaldo, he left the work premises after his shift, but he had to return to retrieve his personal belongings. Upon arrival at the work premises, Reynaldo chanced upon Felix, whom he claimed was staring sharply at him. Reynaldo stated that he accosted Felix and asked if there was a problem. Felix fired back and asked Reynaldo the same question. A heated argument with shoving then ensued. Another employee, Jose, broke up the melee and led Reynaldo away from Felix.

    The employer company, however, countered that Reynaldo was drunk when he confronted Felix to the point of boxing and strangling the latter that the two of them had to be restrained by its security guards. It claimed that Reynaldo refused to be controlled, until Jose arrived, and led Reynaldo outside the garage.

    After the submission of various written explanations, the employer company placed Reynaldo under preventive suspension and conducted an administrative hearing. The employer company later concluded that Reynaldo violated its Code of Discipline for fighting with a co-employee inside the work premises. Thus, Reynaldo was terminated from employment on March 20, 2015.

    Aggrieved, Reynaldo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the employer company.

    The Office of the Labor Arbiter found that Reynaldo was not illegally dismissed from employment because fighting with a co-employee within work premises was considered by the employer company as serious misconduct and a valid ground for termination of his employment.

    The National Labor Relations Commission affirmed the ruling of the Office of the Labor Arbiter.

    The Court of Appeals reversed the findings of the labor tribunals and found that Reynaldo was illegally dismissed from employment since what transpired between Reynaldo and Felix was a petty quarrel that merely involved shoving or slight pushing. The Court of Appeals found that, except for a minor scratch in Reynaldo’s knee, the incident did not cause bodily harm. It was also found that the said incident did not in any manner interfere with the work of fellow employees, or the operations of the business. For the Court of Appeals, the penalty of dismissal imposed upon Reynaldo was too harsh and not commensurate with the act he committed.

    Thus, it declared the illegality of the dismissal of Reynaldo from employment and his entitlement to reinstatement and backwages.

    The employer company elevated its case to the Supreme Court.

    Was Reynaldo illegally dismissed from employment?

    The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative.

    The Court found that Reynaldo did not commit serious misconduct to warrant his dismissal from employment.

    Jurisprudence1Empas v. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc., G.R. No. 246176, December 7, 2021. dictates that misconduct is generally defined as a 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.

    Under Article 297 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, an employer may terminate the services of an employee on the ground of serious misconduct committed in connection with or relative to the performance of his duties.2Relevant portions of the Article states: Art. 297. Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; x x x

    Jurisprudence3Empas v. Mariwasa Siam Ceramics, Inc., G.R. No. 246176, December 7, 2021. also teaches that in labor cases, misconduct, as a ground for dismissal, must be serious or of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. To justify termination on the ground of serious misconduct, the following requisites must concur:

    • the misconduct must be serious;
    • 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
    • it must have been performed with wrongful intent.

    In the present case, the Court found that none of the requisites for serious misconduct was present. It agreed with the finding of the Court of Appeals that only a petty quarrel involving shoving or slight pushing transpired between Reynaldo and Felix. According to the Supreme Court, the same was nipped in the bud by the intervention of Jose and the security guards on duty. The incident neither caused work stoppage nor posed a threat to the safety of the other employees. Furthermore, the employer company never established how Reynaldo’s misconduct had adversely affected its business, or how Reynaldo had become unfit to continue working for the company. For the Supreme Court, no just cause supported the termination of Reynaldo’s employment.

    The Court cited Article 294 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which states that illegally dismissed employees are entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent from the time their compensation was withheld from them up to the time of their actual reinstatement. The Court stated that Reynaldo deserved no less.

    Further reading:

    • G & S Transport Corp. v. Medina, G.R. No. 243768, September 5, 2022.

  • Appalling Disregard of Physical Safety and Property

    Wilfredo alleged that he was engaged as a bus driver by the employer bus company since August 5, 2005.

    Wilfredo narrated that on May 31, 2015, a representative from the head office of the employer bus company instructed him to alight from his assigned bus and no longer allowed him to continue his supposed trip that day. When Wilfredo reported for work the next day, he was advised not to come to work in the meantime. He was told that the employer bus company will just send him an e-mail as to when he will be given a bus assignment.

    Wilfredo thus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, money claims, damages and attorney’s fees against the employer bus company.

    Since the employer bus company failed to file its position paper during the proceedings, the Office of the Labor Arbiter deemed Wilfredo’s allegations to be admitted. The Office of the Labor Arbiter declared Wilfredo to be illegally dismissed from employment and ordered the employer bus company to pay Wilfredo separation pay and backwages, among other awards.

    In its appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, the employer bus company averred that it filed its position paper with respect to the claim of Wilfredo and mailed the same to the Office of the Labor Arbiter.

    The Commission admitted the position paper of the employer bus company and ruled that just cause attended the dismissal of Wilfredo from employment. The Commission found that Wilfredo was involved in several reckless driving incidents that constituted misconduct.

    Wilfredo’s petition before the Court of Appeals was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals found that there was valid ground to dismiss Wilfredo from employment and that the employer bus company complied with the procedural requirements of due process in such dismissal.

    Wilfredo elevated his case before the Supreme Court. Wilfredo insisted that the employer bus company failed to substantiate his alleged cumulative infractions of company rules for reckless driving that warranted his dismissal. Wilfredo further mentioned that the employer bus company failed to afford him procedural due process since he was not given a notice to explain, there was no hearing or conference to afford him an opportunity to present evidence to support his claim, and he did not receive a notice of termination.

    Was Wilfredo validly dismissed from employment?

    The Supreme Court ruled that Wilfredo was validly dismissed from employment.

    The Court discussed that dismissal from employment has two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and second, the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process. The burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the disciplinary action was made for lawful cause or that the termination of employment was valid. In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is substantial evidence or “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Thus, unsubstantiated suspicions, accusations, and conclusions of the employer do not provide legal justification for dismissing the employee.

    With regard to the substantive aspect, the Court found that the employer bus company terminated Wilfredo’s employment on the ground of serious misconduct. The Court stated that for serious misconduct to be a just cause for dismissal, the concurrence of the following elements is required: (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.

    In the present case, the Court found that the employer bus company presented sufficient evidence to prove that Wilfredo committed numerous infractions of company rules and regulations since he started working with the employer bus company. According to the Court, the infractions can be traced as far back as 2002 up to the time he was rehired in 2008 when he admitted to hitting a concrete mixer truck in Baliuag, Bulacan. The Court added that in the year 2009, the side mirror of Wilfredo’s assigned bus was destroyed while he was trying to overtake another bus; and in 2013, he had an altercation with an inspector of the employer bus company for which he was meted a penalty of suspension. The Court continued that the last infraction was in March 2015 when he figured in a vehicular accident that caused injuries to his passengers.

    For the Court, the repeated and numerous infractions committed by Wilfredo in driving the passenger bus assigned to him cannot be considered minor. The Court took judicial notice of the gross negligence and the appalling disregard of the physical safety and property of others so commonly exhibited today by the drivers of passenger buses. Taking into account the nature of Wilfredo’s job, the Court determined Wilfredo’s infractions to be numerous to be ignored or treated lightly that the same may already be subsumed as serious misconduct. The Court accordingly held that Wilfredo was validly dismissed from employment on the ground of serious misconduct.

    With regard to requirements of procedural due process, the Court found that the employer bus company failed to comply with the same. The Court expounded that the following should be considered in terminating the services of employees:

    • The first written notice to be served on the employees should contain the specific causes or grounds for termination against them, and a directive that the employees are given the opportunity to submit their written explanation within a reasonable period of at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice.
    • After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will be given the opportunity to explain and clarify their defenses to the charge against them; present evidence in support of their defenses; and rebut the evidence presented against them by the management.
    • After determining that termination of employment is justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written notice of termination indicating that: all circumstances involving the charge against the employees have been considered; and grounds have been established to justify the severance of their employment.

    In the present case, the Court found that the employer bus company was unable to send Wilfredo a first written notice containing the specific causes or grounds for termination against him. Although Wilfredo submitted a lengthy explanation letter dated June 3, 2015 explaining his side on the incident that transpired two months back, the Court stressed that such explanation did not excuse the fact that there was a complete absence of the first notice. The Court thus sanctioned the employer bus company for disregarding due process requirements.

    According to the Court, where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in this case, the lack of statutory due process will not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal or ineffectual. The employer will not be required to pay the employee backwages. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory right in the form of nominal damages in the amount of Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00) in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

    Further reading:

    • Mariano v. G.V. Florida Transport, G.R. No. 240882, 16 September 2020.

    Subscribe to YouTube and Spotify

  • Expletives, Dismissals, and Unfair Labor Practices

    “O” was a professor and the assistant chairperson of the Social Sciences Department of a university. “O” was also the president of the university union, a duly registered labor union and the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the university’s faculty and non-academic personnel.

    On 5 September 2014, the university received an administrative complaint filed by a student against “O.” The student claimed that “O” abused her and accordingly violated the university’s code of conduct and Republic Act No. 7610.

    According to the student, she encountered “O” as the latter was about to enter the university’s faculty room. She held the doorknob on her way out of the office, while “O” held the opposite end of the doorknob. When she stepped aside, “O” allegedly exclaimed the words “anak ng puta” and walked on without any remorse. The student claims that she experienced emotional trauma from “O”‘s conduct.

    The university thus charged “O” with gross misconduct and unprofessional behavior in violation of Section 16 (4) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, or the Education Act of 1982.1SECTION 16. Teacher’s Obligations. — Every teacher shall:

    1. Perform his duties to the school by discharging his responsibilities in accordance with the philosophy, goals, and objectives of the school.

    2. Be accountable for the efficient and effective attainment of specified learning objectives in pursuance of national development goals within the limits of available school resources.

    3. Render regular reports on performance of each student and to the latter and the latter’s parents and guardians with specific suggestions for improvement.

    4. Assume the responsibility to maintain and sustain his professional growth and advancement and maintain professionalism in his behavior at all times.

    5. Refrain from making deductions in students’ scholastic ratings for acts that are clearly not manifestations of poor scholarship.

    6. Participate as an agent of constructive social, economic, moral, intellectual, cultural and political change in his school and the community within the context of national policies. (Emphasis supplied)

    The university eventually dismissed “O” after complying with the requirements of procedural due process. “O” then proceeded to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against the university.

    “O” denied that he “unjustifiably, angrily” yelled “anak ng puta” at the student. He pointed out inconsistencies in her testimony, arguing that he was in his classroom, and not where she had claimed, when the incident happened. In any case, “O” insisted that he had no motive to malign the student, who was never enrolled in any of his classes, and whom he did not know before the alleged incident.

    “O” also contended that “anak ng puta” per se is neither defamatory nor constitutive of gross misconduct and unprofessional behavior. He argued that there was no proof that he had perverse or corrupt motivations in violating the school policy.

    “O” added that should he be found guilty, dismissal was too harsh a penalty for the alleged infraction, especially since it would have been his first offense after 20 years of service. He believed that he was well loved by his students and that he had been professional throughout his stint, mindful of others’ feelings.

    “O” further contended that his dismissal constituted unfair labor practice as it was done on account of his union activities, which involved taking a stand against the school’s K-12 policies. He claimed that the university saw the complaint as an opportunity to get rid of him for being critical of the university’s actions. He also asserted that the dismissal was done at the time the union was mourning the death of its secretary.

    Was “O” validly dismissed from employment?

    The Supreme Court ruled that “O”‘s dismissal was valid.

    Article 297 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that an employer may terminate an employment for serious misconduct.

    Misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct. It 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 of judgment. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning of the act must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the work of the employee to constitute just cause from his separation.

    In order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant the dismissal of an employee under paragraph (a) of Article [297] of the Labor Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained of has violated some established rules or policies. It is equally important and required that the act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent.

    Misconduct is not considered serious or grave when it is not performed with wrongful intent. If the misconduct is only simple, not grave, the employee cannot be validly dismissed.2National Labor Relations Commission v. Salgarino, G.R. No. 164376, July 31, 2006, 529 PHIL 355-376

    The Court stated that a teacher exclaiming “anak ng puta” after having encountered a student is an unquestionable act of misconduct. However, the Court also clarified that whether the said expression constitutes serious misconduct that warrants the teacher’s dismissal will depend on the context of the phrase’s use. “Anak ng puta” is similar to “putang ina” in that it is an expletive sometimes used as a casual expression of displeasure, rather than a personal attack or insult.3Pader v. People, G.R. No. 139157, February 8, 2000, 381 PHIL 932-937

    In the present case, the Court found that the utterance in question, “anak ng puta,” was an expression of annoyance or exasperation. Both “O” and the student were pulling from each side of the door, prompting “O” to exclaim frustration without any clear intent to maliciously damage or cause emotional harm upon the student. That they had not personally known each other before the incident, and that “O” had no personal vendetta against the student as to mean those words to insult her, confirm this conclusion.

    However, the Court considered other relevant circumstances that aggravated the misconduct he committed.

    First, he not only denied committing the act, but he also refused to apologize for it and even filed a counter-complaint against the student for supposedly tarnishing his reputation. He even refused to sign the receiving copy of the notices that sought to hold him accountable for his act.

    According to the Court, while uttering an expletive out loud in the spur of the moment is not grave misconduct per se, the refusal to acknowledge this mistake and the attempt to cause further damage and distress to a minor student cannot be mere errors of judgment. “O”‘s subsequent acts are willful, which negate professionalism in his behavior. They contradict a professor’s responsibility of giving primacy to the students’ interests and respecting the institution in which he teaches. In the interest of self-preservation, “O” refused to answer for his own mistake; instead, he played the victim and sought to find fault in a student who had no ill motive against him.

    The Court added that had he been modest enough to own up to his first blunder, “O”‘s case would have gone an entirely different way.

    Second, a similar complaint had already been filed against “O”: that of verbal abuse against another student.

    And third, “O” was found to have exhibited aggressive behavior to his colleagues in that he shouted at co-professors, displayed a dirty finger sign against his immediate superior, and challenged a co-professor to a fist-fight.

    For the Court, the foregoing circumstances revealed “O”‘s pugnacious character and ill-mannered conduct.

    The Court stressed that in determining the sanction imposable on an employee, the employer may consider the former’s past misconduct and previous infractions.4Sy v. Neat, Inc., G.R. No. 213748, November 27, 2017

    Employers are not expected to retain an employee whose behavior causes harm to its establishment. The law also recognizes the right of the employer to expect from its workers not only good performance, adequate work and diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such persons whose continuance in the service will patently be inimical to its interests. 5Sugue v. Triumph International (Phils.), Inc., G.R. Nos. 164804 & 164784, January 30, 2009, 597 PHIL 320-342

    In the present case, “O” cannot rely on his 20-year stay in the university to shield him from liability. The longer an employee stays in the service of the company, the greater is his responsibility for knowledge and compliance with the norms of conduct and the code of discipline in the company.6Punzal v. ETSI Technologies, Inc., G.R. Nos. 170384-85, March 9, 2007, 546 PHIL 704-719

    For the Court, “O”‘s dismissal was valid.

    Did “O”‘s dismissal from employment constitute unfair labor practice?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the university was not guilty of unfair labor practice.

    Under Article 258 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, unfair labor practices are violative of the constitutional right of workers to self-organize.

    Jurisprudence teaches that the person who alleges the unfair labor practice has the burden of proving it with substantial evidence.7UST Faculty Union v. University of Santo Tomas, G.R. No. 180892, April 7, 2009, 602 PHIL 1016-1036 In determining whether an act of unfair labor practice was committed, the totality of the circumstances must be considered. If the unfair treatment does not relate to or affect the workers’ right to self-organize, it cannot be deemed unfair labor practice. A dismissal of a union officer is not necessarily discriminatory, especially when that officer committed an act of misconduct. In fact, union officers are held to higher standards.8Republic Savings Bank v. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-20303, October 31, 1967, 128 PHIL 230-247 and Great Pacific Life Employees Union v. Great Pacific Life Assurance Corp., G.R. No. 126717, February 11, 1999, 362 PHIL 452-466

    In the present case, the Court found that “O”‘s dismissal, which was brought about by his personal acts, did not constitute unfair labor practice as provided under the Labor Code of the Philippines. Dismissing him was not meant to violate the right of the university employees to self-organize. Neither was it meant to interfere with the Union’s activities. The Court further stated that “O” failed to prove that the proceedings against him were done with haste and bias. And although the Court noted “O”‘s defense that he was the union president, this does not make him immune from liability for his acts of misconduct.

    The Court reiterated the principle that the employer’s management prerogative to dismiss an employee is valid as long as it is done in good faith and without malice.9 In this case, this Court found no bad faith on the part of the university when it dismissed “O” from employment. “O”‘s claim of unfair labor practice thus failed.

    Further reading:

    • Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union v. Adamson University, G.R. No. 227070, March 9, 2020.

  • False Report of a Patient’s Maltreatment

    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.

  • To Strong-arm Colleagues and Superiors into Succumbing to One’s Arrogance

    Under the law1ARTICLE 297 (Formerly 282) Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

    (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

    (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

    (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

    (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and

    (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.     an employer may validly terminate the services of an employee for serious misconduct and willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer.

    Serious misconduct is characterized as a 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.

    For misconduct to be considered as a just cause for termination, the following requisites must concur:

    • the misconduct must be serious;
    • 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
    • it must have been performed with wrongful intent.

    Loss of trust and confidence, in turn, will validate an employee’s dismissal when it is shown that:

    • the employee concerned holds a position of trust and confidence;2There are two (2) classes of positions of trust:

      First, managerial employees whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a department or a subdivision thereof, and to other officers or members of the managerial staff; and

      Second, fiduciary rank-and-file employees, such as cashiers, auditors, property custodians, or those who, in the normal exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or property. These employees, though rank-and-file, are routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer’s money or property, and are thus classified as occupying positions of trust and confidence.       and
    • he performs an act that would justify such loss of trust and confidence.

    Employers are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the services of employees who perform functions by which their nature require the employer’s full trust and confidence. Mere existence of basis for believing that the employee has breached the trust and confidence of the employer is sufficient and does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, when an employee has been guilty of breach of trust or his employer has ample reason to distrust him, a labor tribunal cannot deny the employer the authority to dismiss him.

    In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed the valid dismissal of this employee on the grounds of serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence because it found that the employer was able to prove, through substantial evidence, the existence of the same.

    SERIOUS MISCONDUCT

    Employee’s misconduct was serious.

    The Court found that the employee frequently exhibited disrespectful and belligerent behavior, not only to his colleagues, but also to his superiors.

    Specifically, the employee had used his stature as a law graduate to insist that he is “above” his colleagues and superiors, often using misguided legalese to weasel his way out of the charges against him, as well as to strong-arm his colleagues and superiors into succumbing to his arrogance.

    The Court noticed the employee’s obnoxious attitude from the following documents:

    • his reply to HRD 202 File 2008.02.26.036 dated February 26, 2008 wherein he threatened HRD Manager Marquez with a lawsuit, stating that if the memorandum is “proven malicious, [she] might be answerable to a certain degree of civil liability which the 1987 Constitution has given to individuals”;
    • HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.086 dated June 26, 2008 wherein he berated COO Bentillo in front of her subordinates with the statement: “[y]ou’re the only one who doesn’t trust her, she is very qualified, you even lose in comparison to her[,]” and his reply thereto wherein he dismissed the charge as made with malicious intent and aimed to discredit his person;
    • HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.088 dated June 26, 2008 wherein he argued with the CEO Quevedo, insisting that he had the authority to hire a new staff, and his reply thereto where he cited the Philippine Law Dictionary to maintain that his act did not amount to insubordination;
    • HRD 202 File 2008.06.26.087 dated June 26, 2008 wherein he openly questioned the authority of HRD Manager Marquez in refusing to hire a new staff and his reply thereto where he again cited the Philippine Law Dictionary to insist that he did not commit acts of insubordination; and
    • HRD 202 File 2008.07.04.095 dated July 4, 2008 wherein he openly and improperly confronted the CPMPC CEO during a Board of Directors’ inquiry hearing, to which he again maintained that his acts did not constitute misconduct, gross disrespect, and loss of trust and confidence as he was only looking after the welfare of the cooperative.

    The Court stated that while management has the rightful prerogative to take away dissidents and undesirables from the workplace within the bounds of law, it should not be forced to deal with difficult personnel, else it be compelled to act against the best interest of its business.

    According to the Court, demeanor of the employee, as revealed by the evidence above, not only reflected his defiance, but also bred antagonism in his work environment.

    Employee’s conduct was work-related.

    The Court found that the employee’s demeanor were were incidents which sprung from the performance of his duties.

    Employee’s misconduct was performed with wrongful intent.

    The Court found that the complainant did not advance any justifiable reason for the same. According to the Court, the employee came off as a smart aleck who went to the extent of dangling whatever knowledge he had of the law against his employer in a combative manner. According to the Court:

    “[e]very time [the employee’s] attention was called for some inappropriate actions, he would always show his Book, Philippine Law Dictionary and would ask the CEO or HRD Manager under what provision of the law he would be liable for the complained action or omission.”

    The Court concluded that the employer was justified in no longer tolerating the grossly discourteous attitude of [the employee] as it clearly constituted conduct unbecoming of his managerial position and a serious breach of order and discipline in the workplace.

    LOSS OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

    The employee occupied a position of trust and confidence.

    The Court found that he was employed as Credit and Collection Manager, and later on, as Legal and Collection Manager, tasked with the duties of, among others, handling the credit and collection activities of the cooperative, which included recommending loan approvals, formulating and implementing credit and collection policies, and conducting trainings.

    The employee performed acts that justified the employer’s loss of trust and confidence upon him.

    The Court noted the following acts of the employee:

    • the forwarding of the mediation settlements for notarization to a lawyer who was not the authorized legal retainer of CPMPC;
    • the pull-out of important records and vital documents from the office premises, which were either lost or returned already tampered and altered; and
    • the incurring of unliquidated cash advances related to the notarial transactions of the mediation agreements.

    Although the employee claimed that he had good intentions in entering into those transactions as he was only finding ways for his employer to save up on legal fees, the Court did not give credence to the same, considering that said transactions were not only highly irregular, but also done without the prior knowledge and consent of his employer.

    Further reading:

    • Cebu People’s Multi-Purpose Cooperative v. Carbonilla, Jr., G.R. No. 212070, January 27, 2016.

  • 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.