8. Janssen Pharmaceutica v.
Silayro (Kara) In termination cases, the burden of proof rests with the employer to show that
Feb 26, 2008 | Chico-Nazario, J. | Just Cause
PETITIONER: Janssen Pharmaceutica
RESPONDENT: Benjamin Silayro
SUMMARY: SILAYRO’s services were terminated byJANSSEN.
SILAYRO was found guilty of dishonesty in that issue of the discrepancy of
the samples and failingto return the company vehicle and other
accountabilities in violation of Sec. 9.5.5 of the Code of Conduct. He was
also found to be a habitual offender. SILAYRO later on filed a
complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal. LA granted. NLRC
affirmed. CA reversed. WON there was a just cause for Silayro’s dismissal?
No. With regard to the issue of his dishonesty inaccomplishing his
report on product samples, JANSSEN failed to present evidence
that SILAYRO was guilty of dishonesty in accomplishing the report. In this
case, JANSSEN had not been able to identify an act of dishonesty,
misappropriation, or any illicit act, which the respondent may have
committed inconnection with the erroneously reported
productsamples. JANSSEN merely relied on the fact that thenumber of
product samples SILAYRO reported was incorrect. While respondent
was admittedly negligent,his errors alone are insufficient evidence of a
dishonest purpose. Since fraud implies willfulness or wrongfulintent,
the innocent non-disclosure of or inadvertenterrors in declaring
facts by the employee to the employer will not constitute a just
cause for the dismissal of the employee. In addition, the subsequent acts of
respondent belie a design to misappropriateproduct samples. So as to
escape any liability, SILAYRO could have easily just submitted for audit
onlythe number of product samples which he reported. Instead, he
brought all the product samples in his custody during the audit
and, afterwards, honestly admitted to his negligence. Negligence is defined
as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably
prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation.
DOCTRINE: To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two
requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal must be for any of the causes
provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and, (2) the employee must
be given anopportunity to be heard and to defend himself.
the dismissal is for just and validcause. Failure to do so would necessarily
mean that the dismissal was not justified and therefore was illegal.Dishonesty
is a serious charge, which the employer must adequately prove, especially
when it is the basis for termination.
FACTS:
1. Janssen Pharmaceutica (JANSSEN) is a division ofJohnson
and Johnson Philippines engaged in the saleand manufacture of
pharmaceutical products. In 1989,Benjamin Silayro (SILAYRO)
was hired as Territory/Medical Representative.
2. Sometime 1994, Silayro was found guilty of granting unauthorized
premium/free goods to and unauthorized pull-outs from
customers. JANSSEN failed to attach records to support its
allegations but Silayro admitted to granting unauthorized goods
but vehemently denied violating the rule on or having
been charged with unauthorized pull-outs.
3. Silayro was also investigated for dishonesty inconnection
with the Rewards of Learning Test. This ROL test is a one-
page take-homeexamination, with two 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 representatives. It was discovered that
SILAYRO’s ROL answers werewritten by another co-
employee, Joedito Gasendo.
4. He was then sent subsequent memos:
a. July 1998 - A memo requiring an explanationfor the ROL
incident.
b. August 1998 - A memo requiring Silayro toexplain his
delay in submitting process reports
i. September 1998 – Silayro submittedan
explanation stating that the delay in
thesubmission of reports was caused by
thedeaths of his grandmother and his aunt,
andthe hospitalization of his mother. He
alsoaverred that he had asked his co-
employeeJoedito Gasendo to write his answers to
theROL test because at the time when
theexamination was due, he already needed
 toleave to see his father-in-law, who 9.5.5 of the Code of Conduct. Hewas also found to be a habitual
wassuffering from cancer and confined in offender.
ahospital in Manila. 10. SILAYRO later on filed a complaint for unfair
ii. October 20, 1998 – another memo regardingthe laborpractice, illegal dismissal.
discrepancies between the number of 11. The Labor Arbiter found the penalty of dismissal tooharsh and
productsamples recorded in his ordered his reinstatement without payment ofbackwages. NLRC
Daily/Weekly CoverageReport (DCR) and the declared the reinstatement improperand that the dismissal was just
number of product samplesfound in his and authorized. The CAdeclared the dismissal illegal, granted
possession during the 14 October1998 reinstatement ,ordered payment of backwages and if reinstatement
audit. The actual number of sample is no longer feasible, payment of separation pay.
productsfound in his possession exceeded the ISSUE:
number ofsample products he reported to 1. W/N There were sufficient grounds for Silayro’s Dismissal? NO..
JANSSEN.
5. Silayro explained, through a "Response Memo" dated24 October RATIO:
1998, that he failed to count the quantity ofsamples when they 1. To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, tworequisites
were placed in his custody. Thus,he failed to take note of must concur: (1) the dismissal must be forany of the causes
the excess samples fromprevious months. He, likewise, provided in Article 282 of the LaborCode; and, (2) the
admitted to committingerrors in posting the samples that he employee must be given anopportunity to be heard and to
distributed tosome doctors during the months of August defend himself
andSeptember 1998. 2. With regard to the issue of his dishonesty
6. He was later on issued a Notice of Disciplinary actionupon inaccomplishing his report on product samples,JANSSEN
finding him guilty of the following offenses:delayed failed to present evidence that SILAYROwas guilty of
submission of process reports and cheating onhis ROL test. He dishonesty in accomplishing the report.
was subjected to a one daysuspension without pay for each 3. In termination cases, the burden of proof rests with theemployer to
offense. show that the dismissal is for just and validcause. Failure to do so
7. On the same day, he was also issued a Notice would necessarily mean that thedismissal was not justified and
ofPreventive Suspension for Dishonesty in Accomplishingother therefore was illegal.Dishonesty is a serious charge, which the
Accountable documents in connection with theOctober employermust adequately prove, especially when it is the basisfor
discrepancy. He was then directed to surrenderthe car, termination.
promotional materials and all otheraccountabilities by Nov. 4. In this case, JANSSEN had not been able to identify anact of
25, 1998. dishonesty, misappropriation, or any illicit act,which the
8. In line with his promise to surrender his respondent may have committed inconnection with the
accountabilities,SILAYRO wrote a letter asking his superiors erroneously reported productsamples. JANSSEN merely relied
where heshould return his accountabilities but he did not on the fact that thenumber of product samples SILAYRO
receiveany instructions. reported wasincorrect. While respondent was admittedly
9. SILAYRO’s services were later on terminated negligent,his errors alone are insufficient evidence of a
byJANSSEN. SILAYRO was found guilty of dishonesty inthat dishonestpurpose. Since fraud implies willfulness or
issue of the discrepancy of the samples and failingto return the wrongfulintent, the innocent non-disclosure of or
company vehicle and other accountabilitiesin violation of Sec. inadvertenterrors in declaring facts by the employee to
theemployer will not constitute a just cause for
 thedismissal of the employee. In addition, the subsequent acts of performing hisresponsibilities. At any other time during
respondent belie a design to misappropriateproduct samples. hisemployment, he had shown himself a commendableworker.
So as to escape any liability,SILAYRO could have easily 9. Nonetheless, the infractions committed by SILAYRO,while
just submitted for audit onlythe number of product samples disproportionate to a penalty of dismissal, will notbe overlooked.
which he reported.Instead, he brought all the product The suspension of five months withoutpay, imposed by the Court
samples in hiscustody during the audit and, afterwards, of Appeals, would serve as asufficient and just punishment for his
honestlyadmitted to his negligence. Negligence is defined as violations of thecompany’s Code of Conduct
thefailure to exercise the standard of care that
areasonably prudent person would have exercised in asimilar
situation.
5. The SC found that SILAYRO did not commit any willfulviolation,
rather he merely failed to exercise thestandard care required
of a territory representative tocarefully count the number of
product samplesdelivered to him.
6. The gravest charge that SILAYRO faced was cheatingin his ROL
test. Although he avers that he formulatedthe answers himself and
that he merely allowed his co-employee Joedito Gasendo to write
down his answersfor him, the SC found this excuse to be very
flimsy. TheROL test consists of one page and two
straightforwardquestions, which can be answered by more or less
tensentences. He could have spared the few minutes itwould take
to write the examination. If he had lackedthe time due to a family
emergency, a request for anextension would have been the more
reasonable andhonest alternative.
7. The improper taking of the ROL test, while it puts intoquestion
the examinee’s moral character, does notresult in any
potential loss of property or damage to thereputation of the
employer. The respondent’s ten yearsof commendable
performance cannot be cancelled outby a single mistake made
during a difficult period of hislife, a mistake that did not pose a
potential danger to hisemployer.
8. SILAYRO’s violations of petitioner’s Code of Conduct,even if
taken as a whole, would not fall under the justcauses of termination
provided under Article 282 of theLabor Code. They are mere
blunders, which may becorrected. JANSSEN failed to point out
even a potentialdanger that respondent would misappropriate
orimproperly dispose of company property placed in hiscustody. It
had not shown that during his employment,that SILAYRO took a
willfully defiant attitude against it.It also failed to show a pattern
of negligence whichwould indicate that he is incapable of