6.

A company has the right to dismiss its erring employees if only as a measure of self-protection against
acts inimical to its interest. The law in protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression
nor self-destruction of the employer.1

For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, a) it must be serious; b) it must
relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and c) it must show that the employee has become
unfit to continue working for the employer.2

6.1 The deliberate disregard or disobedience of rules by Gonzales cannot be countenanced. Whatever
may be the justification behind the violations is immaterial at this point, because the fact still remains
that an infraction of the company rules has been committed. Under the Labor Code, the employer may
terminate an employment on the ground of serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee
of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work. Infractions of
company rules and regulations have been declared to belong to this category and thus are valid causes
for termination of employment by the employer.3

a) Willful disobedience of the employer's lawful orders, as a just cause for the dismissal of an employee,
envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have
been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a "wrongful and perverse attitude"; (2)
the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain
to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.4

b. Both requisites are present in the instant case. It is true that the letter of termination stipulates that
Gonzales is being dismissed for non-appearance when FB Bahaghari set sail last 05 March 2018. On the
same date, Alvarez received his medical certificate and application for sick leave. However, it is incorrect
for the complainant to claim that Gonzales’ absence was not of grave and aggravated character. A
record of Gonzales’ absenteeism and tardiness, EXHIBIT HR RECORD, on file with DFC’s Human
Resources Department shows contrary to this claim. It is evidenced in the said record that from January
to March 2018, Gonzales already incurred __________ absences. Moreover, a clear line has already
been drawn as to the separation of Gonzales’ employment under the sole proprietor Alvarez, where DFC
being a different entity. That being said, the only material records in this case are those from the day
Gonzales was contracted by DFC.

c. As to the failure to replace the blinking fishing light, nowhere in the facts will support the claim that it
Alvarez prevented Gonzalez to replace the same. The Inventory from DFC’s Purchasing Department
(Exhibit Inventory) serves as an evidence that a light has been purchased for said purpose and is already
in stock. This was made immediately after receiving on short notice that ABC Company do not have the
same light on stock. To which ABC Company agreed on deducting the cost of said light from the
payment. Alvarez, then, instructed Gonzales to use the purchased light, however, the latter insisted on
purchasing one from XYZ Hardware in particular.

d. In Piedad vs. Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. it was held that a series of irregularities when
put together may constitute serious misconduct which, under Article 283 of the Labor Code, is a just

1
Filipino, Inc vs. National Labor Relations Commissions, G.R. No. 70546, October 16, 1986
2
Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf vs. Arenas, G.R. No. 208908, March 11, 2015
3
San Miguel Corporation vs. Ubaldo, 218 SCRA 293, February 01, 1993
4
Id.
cause for dismissal. As established, the two requisites on willful disobedience conduct can be gleaned
from the series of irregular conduct of Gonzales. As presented, the following are his habitual
absenteeism and violation of Alvarez’s order in using the light already in stock.5

Further it was held in Samahan Ng Manggagawa Sa Hyatt-NUHWRAIN v. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, the
Voluntary Arbitrator pointed out that according to the hotel’s Code of Discipline, an employee who
commits three different acts of misconduct within a 12-month period commits serious misconduct. 6

*still undecided as to including the paragraph in green font – if included a Code of Conduct evidence
shall be furnished as evidence where underlined policy above is included.

6.2 Gonzales’ dismissal constitute a just cause, for his neglect of duties is not only gross but also
habitual. To justify the dismissal of an employee for neglect of duties, it is not necessary that the
employer show that he has incurred actual loss, damage, or prejudice by reason of the employee's
conduct. It is sufficient that the gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties tends to
prejudice the employer's interest since it would be unreasonable to require the employer to wait until
he is materially injured before removing the cause of the impending evil.7

a) Gross negligence has been defined as the want or absence of or failure to exercise slight care or
diligence, or the entire absence of care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without
exerting any effort to avoid them.8

b) Assuming but not conceding with the complainant’s contention that he performed routine check-up
and maintenance religiously on the engine of the fishing boat, it can be clearly adduced from the
evidence that his insubordination to Alvarez’s order on the use of the light bulb purchased by DFC led to
the failed operations of the fishing ship.

c) As established Gonzales’ absenteeism is habitual. The record of Gonzales’ absenteeism and tardiness,
EXHIBIT HR RECORD, on file with DFC’s Human Resources Department shows that from January to
March 2018, Gonzales already incurred __________ absences. This is a violation of the policy on
absences (EXHIBIT POLICY ON ABSENCES) as agreed upon between DFC, the employer, and Gonzales,
the employee. Generally, tardiness and absenteeism, like abandonment, are a form of neglect of duty.
This is supported by the case Sajonas vs. NLRC, where acts of insubordination, coupled with habitual
tardiness, are sufficient causes for the employees' dismissal. 9

Moreover, in the case Cando vs. NLRC and Filipinas Bank, it was held that dismissal of employee (the
union president) based on unauthorized absences, justified. As an employee the petitioner is expected
to be aware of the rules and regulations of the bank regarding leaves of absences. As observed by the
Commission, the absences of the petitioner were not authorized. On this score, his dismissal appears to
be warranted. It is understandable for respondent's officers to just verbally remind or warn complainant
to follow bank rules on leave of absences, instead of issuing him written warnings, as complainant was

5
Piedad vs. Lanao del Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. G.R. No. 73735, August 31, 1987
6
Samahan Ng Manggagawa Sa Hyatt-NUHWRAIN v. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines, July 27, 2011
7
Department of Labor Manual, Sec. 4343.01 [27]
8
Citibank vs. Gatchalian, et al., G.R. No. 111222, January 18, 1995
9
Sajonas vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 49286, March 15, 1990
the Union President, who is presumed to the most knowledgeable among the rank-and-files of what to
do and not to do.10

6.3 It is interesting to note that Gonzales’ act of insisting to purchase the light from XYZ Hardware
instead of following the order of Alvarez to use the one in stock constitutes fraud. To constitute a just
cause for terminating the employee's services the fraud must be committed against the employer or
representative and in connection with the employee's work.11

Dishonesty is defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud untrustworthiness; lack of
integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness;
disposition to defraud deceive or betray.12

a) It is incorrect to claim that Gonzales as the DFC’s boat mechanic is also responsible for the purchase
of necessary materials and equipment for boat maintenance. As per DFC and ABC Company’s
agreement, ABC Company will supply labor as well as equipment to the former. Should there be
immediate need of supply which the latter cannot deliver, DFC may take charge and deduct the
expenses from the payment to ABC Company in accordance with their agreement (EXHBIT DFC-AGENCY
agreement).

This led to Alvarez interrogating as to the reason of Gonzales in insisting to purchase the light from XYZ
Hardware in particular. It was later found out that the said hardware is owned and managed by his
brother (EXHIBIT XYZ Hardware Business Permit with identity of Gonzales brother). Thus, fraud has been
committed and all its elements are present, to wit: (1) there must be an act, omission, or concealment;
(2) the act, omission or concealment involves a breach of trust, or confidence justly reposed; it must be
committed against the employer or his/her representative; and (4) it must be in connection with the
employee’s work.

In Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al, similar instance transpired, the
use by a PAL employee of a weighing scale which he knew to be defective (possibly tampered) at the
time of the shipment in order to benefit the shipper and defraud the airline, constituted serious
misconduct and dishonesty justifying his dismissal from the service.13

6.4 Moreover, the Court ruled in many instances that reinstatement is no longer viable where, among
others, the relations between the employer and the employee have been so severely strained, that it is
not in the best interest of the parties, nor is it advisable or practical to order reinstatement, or where
the employee decides not to be reinstated. In the instant case, the resulting circumstances show that
reinstatement would be impractical and would hardly promote the best interest of the parties.
Resentment and enmity between petitioners and private respondent necessarily strained the
relationship between them or even provoked antipathy and antagonism as shown by the acts of the
parties subsequent to the order of reinstatement.14

10
Cando vs. NLRC and Filipinas Bank, G.R. No. 91344, September 14, 1990
11
Dept. of Labor Manual, Section 4343.01 [3]
12
National Power Corporation vs. A. Olandesca, G.R. No. 171434, April 23 2010 citing Philippine Amusement and
Gaming Corp. vs. Rilloraza, G.R. No. 141141 June 25, 2001.
13
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al, G.R. No. 83834, June 30, 1989
14
DUP Sound Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, 660 SCRA 461, November 21, 2011
In the same light, the employer cannot be compelled to continue the employment of a person who was
found guilty of maliciously committing acts which are detrimental to his interests. It will be highly
prejudicial to the interests of the employer to impose on him the charges that warranted his dismissal
from employment. Indeed, it will demoralize the rank and file if the undeserving, if not undesirable,
remain in the service. It may encourage him to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of
discipline that employees are required to observe.15

This is strongly supported by the ruling of the Court in the case San Miguel Corp. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, which held that in protecting the rights of the laborer, it cannot authorize the
oppression or self-destruction of the employer.16

15
Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Alonzo, 199 SCRA 617 (1991), citing Wenphil Corporation vs. NLRC, 170 SCRA 69, 75-76
(1989).
16
San Miguel Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 115 SCRA 329 (1982)