Q: What are the Just causes for termination (Art. 282, LC)?
A:
1. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the Ee of the lawful orders of his Er or representative in connection with his work;
2. Gross and habitual neglect by the Ee of his duties; 3. Fraud or willful breach by the Ee of the trust reposed in him by his Er or duly organized representative;
4. Commission of a crime or offense by the Ee against the person of his Er or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative;
5. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Note: The burden of proving that the termination was for a
valid or authorized cause shall rest on the Er. (Art. 277[b],
LC)
Q: What is Serious Misconduct?
A: It is an improper or wrong conduct; 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. To be serious within the meaning and intendment of the law, the misconduct must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant [Villamor Golf Club vs.
Pehid, G.R. No. 166152, (2005)].
Q: What are the elements of serious misconduct? A:
1. It must be serious or of such a grave and aggravated character;
2. Must relate to the performance of the Ees’ duties;
3. Ee has become unfit to continue working for the Er [Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corp. vs.
NLRC, G.R. No. 124617, (2000)].
Q: Give some examples of serious misconduct. A:
1. Sexual Harassment
2. Fighting within the company premises
3. Uttering obscene, insulting or offensive words against a superior
4. Falsification of time records 5. Gross immorality
Q: Escando, upset at his transfer to the washer section, repeatedly uttered “gago ka” and
threatened bodily harm to his superior Mr. Andres. Is the utterance of the obscene words and threats of bodily harm gross and willful misconduct?
A: Yes. The repeated utterances by Escando of obscene, insulting or offensive words against a superior were not only destructive of the morals of his co-Ees and a violation of the company rules and regulations, but also constitute gross misconduct which is one of the grounds provided by law to terminate the services of an Ee [Autobus Workers
Union vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 11753, (1998)].
Q: Samson made insulting and obscene utterances towards the General Manager saying “Si EDT bullshit yan, sabihin mo kay EDT yan” among others during the Christmas party. Are the utterances towards the General Manager gross misconduct?
A: The alleged misconduct of Samson when viewed in its context is not of such serious and grave character as to warrant his dismissal. Samson made the utterances and obscene gestures at an informal Christmas gathering and it is to be expected during this kind of gatherings, where tongues are more often than not loosened by liquor of other alcoholic beverages, that Ees freely express their grievances and gripes against their Ers. Ees should be allowed wider latitude to freely express their grievances and gripes against their Er. Ees should be allowed wider latitude to freely express their sentiments during these kinds of occasions which are beyond the disciplinary authority of the Er [Samson vs. NLRC, G.R.
No. 121035, (2000)].
Q: When is willful disobedience of the employer’s lawful orders a just cause for termination?
A: Two requisites must concur:
1. The Ees assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude.
2. The disobeyed orders, regulations or instructions of the Er must be:
a. Reasonable and lawful b. Sufficiently known to the Ee
c. In connection with the duties which the Ee has been engaged to discharge
[Cosep vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124966, (1998)].
Q. Is refusal to a promotion by an employee an act of insubordination or willful disobedience?
A. There is no law that compels an Ee to accept a promotion for the reason that a promotion is in the nature of a gift or reward, which a person has the right to refuse. The exercise of the Ee of the right to refuse a promotion cannot be considered in law as insubordination or willful disobedience [PT&T Corp.
vs. CA, G.R. No. 152057, (2003)].
Q: A company vehicle was brought twice out of the company premises without authorization. In the first instance the company opted not to implement any action against Homer and instead issued a memorandum reminding Homer as well as the security guards of the proper procedure. However, in the second instance the vehicle met an accident. Is Homer guilty of willful disobedience even though he was not the one who personally brought the company vehicle out of the company premises and was merely a passenger in the second incident? A: Yes. A rule prohibiting Ees from using company vehicles for private purpose without authority from management is a reasonable one. When Homer rode the company vehicle, he was undoubtedly aware of the possible consequences of his act and taking into consideration his moral ascendancy over the security guards it was incumbent upon him not only to admonish them but also to refrain from using the company car himself. Homer is responsible for the unauthorized release of the vehicle of the company which is a violation of the rules and regulations of the company. Homer was already reminded of the proper procedure of the company. [Family Planning Org. of
the Phil. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 75907, (1992)]
Q: Escobin’s group were security guards based in Basilan. They were placed in floating status and were asked to report for reassignment in Metro Manila by PISI. Upon failure to report or respond to such directives they were ordered dismissed from employment by PISI for willful disobedience. Did the failure to report to Manila amount to willful disobedience?
A: The reasonableness of the rule pertains to the kind of character of directives and commands and to the manner in which they are made. In this case, the order to report to the Manila office fails to meet this standard. The order to report to Manila was inconvenient, unreasonable, and prejudicial to Escobin’s group since they are heads of families residing in Basilan and they were not given transportation money or assurance of availability of work in Manila [Escobin vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118159.
U S T