JANSSEN v.

Silayro [Labor 2] – Just Causes

159
[G.R No. 172528] Feb. 26, 2008 Nazario, J. RC

Petitioners: Respondents:

Recit Ready Summary

Janssen Pharmaceutica (Janssen) is the division of Johnson & Johnson Phil. engaged in the sale and
manufacture of pharmaceutical products. It employed Silayro as Territory/Medical Rep. In 1994, Silayro was found
guilty of granting unauthorized premium/free goods to and unauthorized pull-outs. Janssen failed to support its
allegations with regard to the nature and circumstances surrounding these but Silayro admitted to have been guilty
of granting unauthorized premium/free goods. He, however, denied the charge of unauthorized pull-outs. In 1998,
he was charged for dishonesty in connection with the Rewards of Learning (ROL) test, a one-page take-home
exam with 2 questions to be answered by an enumeration of the standards of performance by which territory reps
are rated and the sales competencies expected of them. It was discovered that his test was in the handwriting of
Joedito Gasendo, a co-employee. A memo was sent to him requiring an explanation. Another memo was sent the
following month to ask for an explanation on the delay in submitting process reports. Silayro explained that the
delay in the submission of reports was caused by the deaths of his grandmother and his aunt, and the
hospitalization of his mother. With regard to the ROL test, he already had to leave to see his father-in-law who was
suffering from cancer and confined, so he asked someone to write it for him but it was his answers. Two memos
were sent on Oct. 20, 1998 for (1) delayed submission of process reports due on Oct. 14, and (2) the
discrepancies between the number of product samples reported in his Daily/Weekly Coverage Report (DCR) and
the number of products in his possession (actual exceeded the number in his report). In his response memo given
the same day, he admitted that he failed to count the quantity of samples when they were given to him so he failed
to take note of the excess from previous months. He also admitted to committing errors in posting the samples that
he gave to some doctors during Aug. and Sept. 1998.

On Nov., Janssen issued a Notice of Disciplinary Action finding Silayro guilty of (1) delayed submission of reports
and (2) cheating in the test. Both merited one-day suspensions. On the same day, a Notice of Preventive
Suspension was issued for dishonesty in connection with the discrepancy in the sample products. Janssen
directed Silayro to surrender the car and other accountabilities. It was also stated that since this was his 3 rd
offense, he could be dismissed. Nov. 25 was the date given to return the car and accountabilities. But a memo
was issued on Nov. 24 for failing to return the accountabilities and for refusing or neglecting orders to perform
work without justifiable reason. He explained that he did not give the accountabilities because he thought that it
would tantamount to an admission thus, resulting to his termination. An administrative hearing was held where
Silayro was accompanied by a union rep. It was discussed there that Silayro promised to return the
accountabilities. Since there were still no instructions, he sent a letter to ask about them. A union rep also sent a
letter on his behalf. The District Supervisor replied though an email that he was still arranging with the National
Sales Manager with regard to the matter. In a letter sent on the same month, Janssen terminated Silayro. He was
found guilty of dishonesty and a habitual offender for the past mentioned offenses. In a telephone conversation,
Silayro said that he will return the accountabilities upon a demand from a proper governmental agency. Janssen
sent a demand letter. Silayro filed a complaint against Janssen and its officers for ULP, illegal dismissal,
reimbursement of operating and representation expenses, non-payment of salary, bonuses and other earned
benefits like rice allocation, free goods allocation etc, and damages and atty’s fees.

Issue: WoN sufficient grounds for the dismissal of Silayro.

In termination cases, the burden of proof is with the employer. Failure to do so would make the dismissal illegal.
Dishonesty is a serious charge, which the employer must adequately prove, especially when it is the basis for
termination. Janssen failed to present evidence that Silayro was guilty of dishonesty with the Daily Week Coverage
Report(DCR). It merely relied on the fact that the number of product samples reported was incorrect, and the
number later found in his possession exceeded that which he reported. Silayro admitted that he failed to check if
the number of product samples indicated in the DCR corresponded to the number actually delivered. He also
made mistakes in posting the product samples distributed during the period. Here, Janssen failed to identify the act
of dishonesty in relation to the DCR. Fraud implies willfulness or wrongful intent, the innocent non-disclosure of or
inadvertent errors in declaring facts by the employee will not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the
employee. Here, Silayro was only found to be negligent in filling out the forms.
For the accountabilities and the car, the order was to return it on Nov. 25. However, the memo was sent on Nov.

ALS B2021 1
24. Thus, there was no offense yet. It was not shown even in Janssen’s pleadings that it gave a definite instruction
as to the return even after the hearing. It was only belatedly requested after the termination.

There was also a lapse of procedural due process. It is implicit that these requirements afford the employee an
opportunity to explain his side, respond to the charge, present his or her evidence and rebut the evidence
presented against him or her. There was only a superficial compliance because it was issued before an offense
was even committed. Silayro was robbed of his rights to explain his side, to present his evidence and rebut what
was presented against him, rights ensured by the proper observance of procedural due process. For the
unauthorized pull-outs, Janssen was not able to give support for this. For the other offenses, he was already
punished for them but this Court must now take into consideration all the offenses that he committed during his
employment and decide whether these infractions, taken together, constitute a valid cause for dismissal. In 1994,
even when he was charged and found guilty, he still got two awards from the company. Thus, it shows how the
company found the offenses insufficient for dismissal. His case must also be viewed with a compassionate light
due to the circumstances he faced at that time. There were different cases compared to Silayro’s case (pls read
this part of the case if you have time), in which it was said that in the cases being compared to, their offenses were
greater but the SC still did not merit dismissal. In this case, the gravest offense was the cheating in which the SC
said that he could have spared some time since it was short or he could have asked for an extension. The
improper taking of this test, while it puts into question the examinee's moral character, does not result in any
potential loss of property or damage to the reputation of the employer. Nor does Silayro's previous performance
show lack of knowledge required in his sales career. It also does not involve property placed in his custody.
Moreover, Janssen only gave him 1 day suspensions. The suspension of five months without pay, imposed by the
Court of Appeals, would serve as a sufficient and just punishment for his violations of the company's Code of
Conduct.

Facts

1. Janssen Pharmaceutica (Janssen) is the division of Johnson & Johnson Philippines, Inc. engaged in the
sale and manufacture of pharmaceutical products
2. In 1989, Janssen employed Benjamin A. Silayro (Silayro) as Territory/Medical Representative
3. During his employment, Silayro received several awards and citations for the years 1990-1997
a. Territory Representative Award, Quota Buster Award, Sipag Award, Safety Driver’s Award, Ring
Club Award, and a Nomination as one of the 10 Outstanding Philippine Salesmen
4. However, he was also investigated for, and in some cases found guilty of, several administrative charges
5. Janssen alleged that in 1994, Silayro was found guilty of granting unauthorized premium/free goods to
and unauthorized pull-outs
a. Janssen failed to attach records to support its allegation and to explain the nature of and the
circumstances surrounding these infractions
6. Silayro admitted to have been guilty of granting unauthorized premium/free goods, but vehemently denied
violating the rule on, or having been charged with, unauthorized pull-outs from customers
7. Silaryo was also investigated for dishonesty in connection with the Rewards of Learning (ROL) test
a. This is a one-page take-home exam, with 2 questions to be answered by an enumeration of the
standards of performance by which territory representatives are rated as well as the sales
competencies expected of territory reps
b. It was discovered that Silayro’s answers were written in the handwriting of a co-employee,
Joedito Gasendo
c. Janssen’s management then sent a memo dated Jul. 27, 1998 requiring an explanation for the
incident
d. On Aug. 20, 1998, another memo was requiring an explanation on the delay in submitting
process reports
8. On Sept. 8, 1998, Silayro submitted a written explanation stating that the delay in the submission of
reports was caused by the deaths of his grandmother and his aunt, and the hospitalization of his mother
a. Wrt the ROL test, he said that he asked Joedito because when the test was due, he already
needed to leave to see his father-in-law, who was suffering from cancer and confined in a
hospital in Manila
9. A new memo was sent dated Oct. 20, 1998, for his delayed submission of process reports due on Oct.
14, 1998
a. And another memo dated the same day regarding the discrepancies between the number of
product samples recorded in his Daily/Weekly Coverage Report (DCR) and the number of
product samples found in his possession

ALS B2021 2
 b. The actual number of sample products in his possession exceeded the number of sample
products he reported
10. In his Response Memo also dated Oct. 20, he explained that he failed to count the quantity of samples
when they were placed in his custody. Thus, he failed to take note of the excess samples from previous
months
a. He also admitted to committing errors in posting the samples that he distributed to some doctors
during the months of August and September 1998
11. Nov. 20, 1998, Janssen issued a Notice of Disciplinary Action finding Silayro guilty of:
a. Delayed submission of process reports – subjected to a one-day suspension without pay
effective Nov. 24, 1998
b. Cheating in his ROL test – one-day suspension
12. Same date, Janssen issued a Notice of Preventive Suspension against Silayro for “Dishonesty in
Accomplishing Other Accountable Documents” in connection with the discrepancy between the quantities
of sample products in Silayro’s report and Janssen’s audit for the Sept. 1998 cycle
a. This also directed Silayro to surrender the car, promotional materials, and all other
accountabilities on or before Nov. 25
b. It was also stated therein that since this was his 3 rd offense for the year, he could be dismissed
under Sec. 9.5.5 of Janssen’s Code of Conduct
13. Before Nov. 25 or the date given by Janssen for Silayro to surrender all his accountabilities, a Memo
dated Nov. 24 was issued to Silayro for the following alleged infractions:
a. Failure to turn over company vehicles assigned after the receipt of instruction to that effect from
superiors
b. Refusing or neglecting to obey Company management orders to perform work without justifiable
reason
14. Silayro wrote a letter dated Nov. 26, explaining that he failed to surrender his accountabilities because he
thought that this was tantamount to an admission that the charges against him were true and thus, could
result to his termination
15. An admin investigation of Silayro’s case was held on Dec. 3, 1998. Silayro was accompanied by union
representative Lyndon Lim
a. they discussed matters concerning the discrepancy in the reports and audit of the product
samples in Sept. 1998
b. they clarified the failure to return his accountabilities and, as a consequence, Silayro promised to
surrender the same
c. They agreed that another admin hearing will be set, but no further hearings were held
16. In line with his promise to surrender his accountabilities, he wrote on Dec. 9 a letter, asking his superiors
where he should return them
17. Union rep, Dominic Regoro, also made requests on his behalf, for instructions, to whom Janssen’s District
Supervisor Raymond Bernardo replied via email on Dec. 16
a. According to Bernardo, he was still in the process of making arrangement with Ruben Cauton,
Janssen’s National Sales Manager, in connection with the return of accountabilities
b. Silayro maintained that he did not receive any instructions
18. In a letter dated Dec. 28, Janssen terminated the services of Silayro
19. Janssen found Silayro guilty of dishonesty in accomplishing the report on the number of product samples
in his possession and failing to return the company vehicle and his other accountabilities in violation of
Sec. 9.2.9 and 9.2.4 of the Code of Conduct
20. He was also found to be a habitual offender whose previous offenses:
a. Granting unauthorized premium/free goods in 1994
b. Unauthorized pull-out of stocks from customer in 1994
c. Dishonesty in accomplishing other accountable documents or instruments (ROL test) in 1998
21. Even after the termination, there was still contact between the parties regarding the accountabilities still in
his possession
22. Sometime in early 1999, in a telephone conversation, Silayro informed Janssen that he will return his
accountabilities only upon demand from the proper governmental agency
23. A demand letter dated Feb. 3, 1999 was sent ordering the return of the company car, promotional
materials, samples, a slide projector, product manuals, product monographs, and training binders
24. Jan. 14, 1999, SIlayro filed a complaint against Janssen and its officers, Besa, Cauton, Lapid and
Bernardo before the Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLR in Iloilo
a. for ULP, illegal dismissal, reimbursement of operating and representation expenses under
expense reports for Oct. and Nov. 1998, non-payment of salary, bonuses and other earned
benefits for Dec. 1998 like rice allocation, free goods allocation etc, and damages and atty’s fees
25. Labor Arbiter: Silayro committed infractions which breached company rules, and which were sufficient
grounds for dismissal

ALS B2021 3
 a. However, he found the penalty of dismissal to be too harsh considering Silayro’s circumstances
and ordered reinstatement without back wages
26. NLRC modified LA’s decision by declaring that reinstatement was improper where Silayro was dismissed
just and authorized causes
27. Silayro filed a petition for certiorari under rule 65. CA reversed the decision of the NLRC
a. CA pronounced that the causes were insufficient for the dismissal since his acts were not
motivated by dishonesty, but were caused by mere inadvertence
b. It concluded that the offenses committed by Silayro merited only a penalty of suspension for 5
months without pay.
c. Also, CA noted that Janssen committed some lapses in compliance with procedural due process
and further took into account the successive deaths and sickness in his family
d. His dismissal was found illegal, he was reinstated, ordered payment of backwages from the time
compensation was withheld to actual reinstatement (minus 5 months salary)

Issues Ruling

WoN sufficient grounds existed for the dismissal of Silayro NO

Rationale

1. To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur:

a. The dismissal must be for any of the causes provided in Art. 282 of the Labor Code
b. The employee must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself
2. In this case, the court must re-examine the factual findings. It goes under the exception of when the
findings of fact of the trial court, or in this case of the quasi-judicial agencies concerned, are conflicting or
contradictory with those of the CA
3. In the termination letter dated Dec. 28, Silayro was dismissed (grounds stated in fact #19 and 20)
4. Court must determine whether Silayro violated the Code of Conduct with his dishonestly in accomplishing
his report on product samples and/or failure to return the company vehicle and accountabilities
5. Janssen failed to present evidence that Silayro was guilty of dishonesty in accomplishing the DCR,
wherein he was supposed to indicate the number of product samples in his possession
a. It merely relied on the fact that the number of product samples reported was incorrect, and the
number later found in his possession exceeded that which he reported
b. Silayro admitted that when the product samples arrived, he failed to check if the number of
product samples indicated in the DCR corresponded to the number actually delivered
c. He also made mistakes in posting the product samples distributed during the period
6. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests with the employer to show that the dismissal is for just and
valid cause. Failure to do so would necessariliy mean that it was not justified and illegal
7. Dishonesty is a serious charge, which the employer must adequately prove, especially when it is the
basis for termination
8. Here, Janssen had not been able to identify an act of dishonesty. Misappropriate, or any illicit act, which
Silayro may have committed in connection with the erroneously reported product samples
9. While he was admittedly negligent in filling out his August and September 1998 DCR, his errors alone are
insufficient evidence of a dishonest purpose.
10. Since fraud implies willfulness or wrongful intent, the innocent non-disclosure of or inadvertent errors in
declaring facts by the employee will not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.
11. In addition, the subsequent acts belie a design to misappropriate product samples. So as to escape any
liability, Silayro could have easily just submitted for audit only the number of product samples which he
reported.
12. Instead, he brought all the product samples in his custody during the audit and, afterwards, honestly
admitted to his negligence.
13. Negligence is defined as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person
would have exercised in a similar situation.
14. For the SC, he did not commit any willful violation, rather he merely failed to exercise the standard care
required of a territory representative to carefully count the number of product samples delivered to him in
August and September 1998.
15. In the Memorandum dated 20 Nov. 1998, Janssen ordered the return of the company vehicle and all
other accountabilities by 25 Nov.

ALS B2021 4
 a. Janssen issued its first notice on 24 Nov. 1998, even before Silayro was obligated to return his
accountabilities.
b. Hence, Silayro could not yet have committed any offense when Janssen issued the first notice.
c. Confused by Janssen's arbitrary action, he did not return his accountabilities, but immediately
explained in a letter dated his reasons for failing to return his accountabilities on 25 Nov. 1998
as previously ordered
16. During the company hearing, Silayro offered to return his accountabilities in accordance with the
instructions to be given
17. In a letter addressed to the Janssen, he reiterated his request for instructions on the return of his
accountabilities. There is no showing that Janssen replied to the letter.
18. The letter written by Janssen’s District Supervisor Raymond Bernardo to union representative Dominic
Regoro sent through email still provided no definite instructions.
19. This is the last communication between the parties on the matter until Silayro wrongfully dismissed for
deliberately refusing to surrender his accountabilities, among other grounds.
20. Janssen does not refer in its pleadings to any instance after the company hearing was held and before
the dismissal wherein it had finally instructed as to how he may turn over his accountabilities.
21. Per Janssen's pleadings, belated demands for the surrender of accountabilities were made in Jan. and
Feb. 1999, after Silayro had already been dismissed.
22. Clearly, the charge against Silayro of insubordination to the instructions for the surrender of his
accountabilities was unfounded since he was still waiting for the instructions when he was dismissed.
23. Moreover, Janssen failed to observe procedural due process
24. Section 2 (d) of Rule 1 of the The Implementing Rules of Book VI states that:
For termination of employment based on just causes as defined in Art. 282 of the Labor Code:
a. A written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and
giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side
b. A hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if
he so desires is given opportunity to respon to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut
the evidence presented against him
c. A written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due consideration of
all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination
25. It is implicit that these requirements afford the employee an opportunity to explain his side, respond to the
charge, present his or her evidence and rebut the evidence presented against him or her
26. The superficial compliance with two notices and a hearing in this case cannot be considered valid where
these notices were issued and the hearing made before an offense was even committed.
27. The first notice, issued on 24 Nov. 1998, was premature since Silayro was obliged to return his
accountabilities only on 25 Nov.
28. As preventive suspension began on 25 Nov., he was still performing his duties as territory representative
the day before, which required the use of the company car and other company equipment.
29. During the admin hearing, both parties clarified the confusion caused by the Janssen's premature notice
and agreed that Silayro would surrender his accountabilities as soon as instructions were given.
30. Since Janssen's ostensible compliance with the procedural requirements of notice and hearing took place
before an offense was even committed, Silayro was robbed of his rights to explain his side, to present his
evidence and rebut what was presented against him, rights ensured by the proper observance of
procedural due process.
31. Of all the past offenses that were attributed, he contests having committed the infraction involving the
unauthorized pull-outs from customers, allegedly made in 1994. Again, the records show that Janssen did
not provide any proof to support said charge.
32. It must be emphasized at this point that the onus probandi to prove the lawfulness of the dismissal rests
with the employer, and in light of petitioner's failure to discharge the same, the alleged offense cannot be
given any credence by this Court.
33. As for the three remaining violations, it is unquestioned that respondent had committed and had already
been punished for them.
34. While a penalty may no longer be imposed on offenses for which he has already been punished, these
offenses, among other offenses, may still be used as justification for an employee's dismissal.
35. Hence, this Court must now take into consideration all the offenses that he committed during his
employment and decide whether these infractions, taken together, constitute a valid cause for dismissal.
36. Undoubtedly, Silayro was negligent in reporting the number of product samples in his custody for Aug.
and Sept. 1998. He also committed three other offenses in the past.
a. First, he was found guilty of and penalized for granting unauthorized free goods in 1994.
b. Secondly, he incurred delays in submitting his process reports for Aug., Sept. and Oct. 1998, for
which charge he was punished with one-day suspension.
c. Lastly, he cheated in an ROL test in July 1998 for which he was punished with another one-day

ALS B2021 5
 suspension.
37. His offense of granting unauthorized free goods was vaguely discussed. Janssen did not offer any
evidence in this connection; it was given credence only because of Silayro’s admission of the same.
a. What acts constituted this offense and the circumstances surrounding it were not explained.
b. However, the records show that in the same year it was committed, in 1994, Janssen still gave
him two awards: membership to the Wild Boar Society and the Five-Year Service Award.
c. Absent any explanation which would give this offense substantial weight and importance, it can
only be presumed that Janssen did not consider the offense as sufficiently momentous to
disqualify him from receiving an award or to even issue a warning that a subsequent offense
would result in the termination of his employment
38. The rest of the infractions imputed were committed during the time he was undergoing serious family
problems. His inability to comply with the deadlines and his lack of care are understandably the result of
his preoccupation with very serious problems.
39. Added to the pressure brought about by the numerous charges he found himself facing, his errors and
negligence should be viewed in a more compassionate light.
Case law: Compared to other cases:
1. Chua v. NLRC and Gustilo v. Wyeth: The inability to keep up with deadlines and carelessness with his
report on product samples during a difficult time in his life are in no way comparable to the transgressions
in the cases cited by petitioner involving other territory
a. In the Chua case, it was not a mere case of delay in the submission of reports and the
occasional mistakes in the DCR, but an established pattern of inattention in the submission and
accomplishing of his reports.
b. The employee therein did not even submit some of the DCRs, while other DCRs were belatedly
submitted in batches covering two to three months. Doctors' call cards lacked either the
corresponding dates or the signatures of the doctors concerned.
c. In the Gustillo case, the employee falsified his application form, a gasoline receipt, a report of his
trade outlet calls, and misused his leaves. Evidently, the employee in this case misappropriated
company resources by making claims for falsified expenses and making personal calls in lieu of
trade outlet calls. In this case, respondent had not defrauded the petitioner of its property.
d. The gravest charge that the Silayro faced was cheating in his ROL test. Although he avers that
he formulated the answers himself and that he merely allowed his co-employee Joedito
Gasendo to write down his answers for him, this Court finds this excuse to be very flimsy.
e. The ROL test consists of one page and two straightforward questions, which can be answered
by more or less ten sentences. He could have spared the few minutes it would take to write the
examination.
f. If he had lacked the time due to a family emergency, a request for an extension would have
been the more reasonable and honest alternative.
g. Despite the disapproving stance taken by this Court against dishonesty, there have been
instances when this Court found the ultimate penalty of dismissal excessive, even for cases
which bear the stigma of deceit.
2. In PLDT v. NLRC, an employee intervened in the anomalous connection of four telephone lines. It was,
likewise, established in Manila Electric Company v. NLRC, that the employee was involved in the illegal
installation of a power line.
a. In both cases, the violations were clearly prejudicial to the economic activity of his employer.
3. Finally, in NLRC v. Salgarino, a school teacher tampered with the grades of her students, an act which
was prejudicial to the school's reputation.
4. Notably, the Court stopped short of dismissing these employees for offenses more serious than the
present case.
5. In this case, the ROL test is a take-home examination intended to check a territory representative's
understanding of information already contained in their Sales Career Manual, wherein the examinees are
even instructed to refer to their manuals.
6. The improper taking of this test, while it puts into question the examinee's moral character, does not result
in any potential loss of property or damage to the reputation of the employer.
7. Nor does Silayro's previous performance show lack of knowledge required in his sales career.
8. Additionally, the dishonesty practiced by the employee did not involve company property that was placed
in his custody.
9. Furthermore, the gravity of this offense is substantially diminished by the fact that Janssen itself had
thought it unimportant enough to merit only a one-day suspension.
10. Silayro’s ten years of commendable performance cannot be cancelled out by a single mistake made
during a difficult period of his life, one that did not pose a potential danger to his employer.
11. The special circumstances of this case — family crises, the duration of his employment, and the quality of
his work during the previous years — must necessarily influence the penalty to be meted out.

ALS B2021 6
 12. It would be a cruel disregard of the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure to impose the penalty of
dismissal, without giving due consideration to the ill fortune that may befall a normally excellent
employee.
13. In NLRC v. Salgarino, a special consideration was given to the fact that the respondent therein had been
in the employ of the petitioners therein for 10 years and that she was a recipient of numerous academic
excellence awards and recognized by her students and some of her peers in the profession as a
competent teacher
14. The Court, in other cases, has repeatedly ruled that in determining the penalty to be imposed on an erring
employee, his or her length of service must be taken into account.
15. In Brew Master International, Inc. v. National Federation of Labor Unions, the emotional, psychological,
spiritual and physical stress and strain undergone by the employee during a family crisis were regarded
as special circumstances which precluded his dismissal from service, despite his prolonged absence from
work.
16. SC explains the circumspection it exercises when faced with the imposition of the extremely severe
penalty of dismissal thus:
The employer's prerogative to discipline its employee must be exercised without abuse of discretion. Its
implementation should be tempered with compassion and understanding. While an employer has the
inherent right to discipline its employees, we have always held that this right must always be exercised
humanely, and the penalty it must impose should be commensurate to the offense involved and to the
degree of its infraction. The employer should bear in mind that, in the exercise of such right, what is at
stake is not the employee's position but her livelihood as well. The law regards the workers with
compassion. Even where a worker has committed an infraction, a penalty less punitive may suffice,
whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe.
This is not only the law's concern for workingman. There is, in addition, his or her family to consider.
Unemployment brings untold hardships and sorrows upon those dependent on the wage- earner.
17. Silayro's violations of Janssen's Code of Conduct, even if taken as a whole, would not fall under the just
causes of termination provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
18. They are mere blunders, which may be corrected.
19. Janssen failed to point out even a potential danger that Silayro would misappropriate or improperly
dispose of company property placed in his custody.
20. It had not shown that during his employment, Silayro took a willfully defiant attitude against it. It also failed
to show a pattern of negligence which would indicate that respondent is incapable of performing his
responsibilities. At any other time during his employment, respondent had shown himself a commendable
worker.
Disposition

Nonetheless, the infractions committed by Silayro, while disproportionate to a penalty of dismissal, will not be
overlooked. The suspension of five months without pay, imposed by the Court of Appeals, would serve as a
sufficient and just punishment for his violations of the company's Code of Conduct.

ALS B2021 7