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.
Lawyer | Law Professor | Author
