381 - Dongon v.

Rapid Movers, August 28, 2013

Facts: Rapid is engaged in the hauling and trucking business while Nathaniel T. Dongon is a former
truck helper leadman. Dagon’s job is to facilitate the loading and unloading of Rapid’s trucks.
Dongon and his driver, Vicente Villaruz, were in the vicinity of Tanduay as they tried to get some
goods to be distributed to their clients. Tanduay’s security guard called the attention of Dongon as
to the fact that Mr. Villaruz’s was not wearing an I.D. Dongon assured the guard that he will secure a
special permission from the management to warrant the orderly release of goods. Instead of
complying with his compromise, Dongon lent his I.D. Card to Villaruz; and by reason of such
misrepresentation, private respondent and Mr. Villaruz got a clearance from Tanduay for the
release of the goods. However, the security guard, who saw the misrepresentation committed by
private respondent and Mr. Villaruz, accosted them and reported the matter to the management of
Tanduay. After conducting an administrative investigation, Dongon was dismissed from the
petitioning Company. Dongon filed for illegal dismissal.
Petitioner maintains that willful disobedience could not be a ground for his dismissal because he
had acted in good faith and with the sole intention of facilitating deliveries for Rapid Movers when
he allowed Villaruz to use his company ID.
Issue: W/N Dongon’s act constituted mental dishonesty and deceit amounting to breach of trust.
Ruling: Petitioner was not guilty of willful disobedience; hence, his dismissal was illegal.

 Willful disobedience to the lawful orders of an employer is one of the valid grounds to
terminate an employee under Article 296 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code.19 For
willful disobedience to be a ground, it is required that: (a) the conduct of the employee must
be willful or intentional; and (b) the order the employee violated must have been
reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties that he had
been engaged to discharge. Willfulness must be attended by a wrongful and perverse
mental attitude rendering the employee’s act inconsistent with proper subordination. In
any case, the conduct of the employee that is a valid ground for dismissal under the Labor
Code constitutes harmful behavior against the business interest or person of his employer.
It is implied that in every act of willful disobedience, the erring employee obtains undue
advantage detrimental to the business interest of the employer.
 Under the foregoing standards, the disobedience attributed to petitioner could not be justly
characterized as willful within the contemplation of Article 296 of the Labor Code. He
neither benefitted from it, nor thereby prejudiced the business interest of Rapid Movers. His
explanation that his deed had been intended to benefit Rapid Movers was credible. There
could be no wrong or perversity on his part that warranted the termination of his
employment based on willful disobedience.
382 - Perez & Doria v. PT&T, April 7, 2009
Facts: B. Perez and A. Doria were employed by respondent Philippine Telegraph and Telephone
Company (PT&T) as shipping clerk and supervisor, respectively, in PT&T's Shipping Section,
Materials Management Group. Acting on an alleged unsigned letter regarding anomalous
transactions at the Shipping Section, respondents formed a special audit team to investigate the
matter. It was discovered that the Shipping Section jacked up the value of the freight costs for goods
shipped and that the duplicates of the shipping documents allegedly showed traces of tampering,
alteration and superimposition. B. Perez was thereafter dismissed.
Issue: W/N petitioners were illegally dismissed? – Yes
Ruling: SC ordered for the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement considering the lapse
14 years from the time petitioners were illegally dismissed.

 Insufficient evidence to clearly and convincingly establish the facts from which the loss of
confidence resulted. Other than their bare allegations and the fact that such documents
came into petitioners' hands at some point, respondents should have provided evidence of
petitioners' functions, the extent of their duties, the procedure in the handling and approval
of shipping requests and the fact that no personnel other than petitioners were involved.
There was a patent paucity of proof connecting petitioners to the alleged tampering of
shipping documents. The alterations on the shipping documents could not reasonably be
attributed to petitioners because it was never proven that petitioners alone had control of
or access to these documents. Unless duly proved or sufficiently substantiated otherwise,
impartial tribunals should not rely only on the statement of the employer that it has lost
confidence in its employee.
 Loss of confidence should not be simulated. It should not be used as a subterfuge for causes
which are improper, illegal or unjustified. Loss of confidence may not be arbitrarily asserted
in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It must be genuine, not a mere
afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith.
 Respondents' illegal act of dismissing petitioners was aggravated by their failure to observe
due process. Petitioners were neither apprised of the charges against them nor given a
chance to defend themselves. They were simply and arbitrarily separated from work and
served notices of termination in total disregard of their rights to due process and security of
tenure. The labor arbiter and the CA correctly found that respondents failed to comply with
the two-notice requirement for terminating employees.
 There is no need for a hearing or conference. Section 2(d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules
of Book VI of the Labor Code should not be taken to mean that holding an actual hearing or
conference is a condition sine qua non for compliance with the due process requirement in
termination of employment. The standard for the hearing requirement, ample opportunity,
is couched in general language revealing the legislative intent to give some degree of
flexibility or adaptability to meet the peculiarities of a given situation. To confine it to a
single rigid proceeding such as a formal hearing will defeat its spirit.
 Where the dismissal was without just or authorized cause and there was no due process,
Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, mandates that the employee is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the
time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual reinstatement.
383 - Bacolod-Talisay Realty v. Dela Cruz, April 30, 2009
Facts: Romeo de la Cruz (overseer) was employed at the Hacienda Gloria, a farm owned and
managed by petitioner Bacolod-Talisay Realty and Development Corporation (BTRD). He was
dismissed on charges of payroll padding, selling canepoints without the knowledge and consent of
management and misappropriating the proceeds thereof, and renting out BTRD's tractor for use in
another farm and misappropriating the proceeds thereof. It was discovered that there were farm
workers whose names were entered in the payroll even if they did not render services and the
corresponding wages were not received by them; and while respondent committed to return the
money intended for wages of those workers who rendered no services, he did not return them.
Respondent filed a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal.
Issue: W/N Dela Cruz was dismissed for just cause.
Ruling:

 There was substantial evidence that just cause existed for the termination of respondent's
employment. The documentary evidence of petitioner indubitably establishes that
respondent committed payroll padding, sold canepoints without the knowledge and
consent of management and misappropriated the proceeds thereof, and rented tractor to
another farm and misappropriated the rental payments therefor. These acts constitute
willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer a ground for
termination of employment.
 Petitioners failed to afford respondent due process by failing to comply with the twin notice
requirement in dismissing him, viz: 1) a first notice to apprise him of his fault, and 2) a
second notice to him that his employment is being terminated. The letter dated June 3,
1997 sent to respondent was a letter of suspension. It did not comply with the required first
notice, the purpose of which is to apprise the employee of the cause for termination and to
give him reasonable opportunity to explain his side.
384 - Alilem Credit Cooperative v. Bandiola, February 25, 2013
Facts: Bandiola, married, was employed by petitioner as bookkeeper. Petitioner’s Board received a
letter from a certain Napoleon Gao-ay (Napoleon) reporting the alleged immoral conduct and
unbecoming behavior of respondent by having an illicit relationship with Napoleon’s sister, a
married woman. Bandiola was dismissed. The LA found respondent to have been validly dismissed
from employment for violation of the cooperative’s Personnel Policy, specifically “the commission
of acts that bring discredit to the cooperative organization, especially, but not limited to conviction
of any crime, illicit marital affairs, scandalous acts inimical to established and accepted social
mores.”
Issue: W/N Bandiola was validly dismissed.
Ruling: Yes

 Engaging in extra-marital affairs is a ground for termination of employment under the

Personnel Policy of petitioner.
 While respondent’s act of engaging in extra--marital affairs may be considered personal to
him and does not directly affect the performance of his assigned task as bookkeeper, aside
from the fact that the act was specifically provided for by petitioner’s Personnel Policy as
one of the grounds for termination of employment, said act raised concerns to petitioner as
the Board received numerous complaints and petitions from the cooperative members
themselves asking for the removal of respondent because of his immoral conduct.
 Respondent was adequately afforded the opportunity to defend himself and explain the
accusation against him.
 395 - Cavite Apparel v. Marquez, February 6, 2013
Facts: Michelle is a regular employee in the Finishing Department of Petitioner. Petitioner is a
domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture of garments for export. Michelle was dismissed
due to habitual absenteeism.

Cavite Apparel argues that Michelles penchant for incurring unauthorized and unexcused absences
despite its warning constituted gross and habitual neglect of duty prejudicial to its business
operations. It insists that by going on absence without official leave four times, Michelle
disregarded company rules and regulations; if condoned, these violations would render the rules
ineffectual and would erode employee discipline.

CA ruled that Michelle’s absences were not habitual since she was able to submit a medical
certificate for her May 8, 2000 absence.

Issue: W/N Michelle was validly dismissed on account of neglect of duty

Ruling:

 Neglect of duty, to be a ground for dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code, must be
both gross and habitual. Gross negligence implies want of care in the performance of ones
duties. Habitual neglect imparts repeated failure to perform ones duties for a period of time,
depending on the circumstances.
 . Based on what we see in the records, there simply cannot be a case of gross and habitual
neglect of duty against Michelle. Even assuming that she failed to present a medical
certificate for her sick leave on May 8, 2000, the records are bereft of any indication that
apart from the four occasions when she did not report for work, Michelle had not been cited
for any infraction since she started her employment with the company in 1994. Four
absences in her six years of service, to our mind, cannot be considered gross and habitual
neglect of duty, especially so since the absences were spread out over a six-month period.
 Michelle might have been guilty of violating company rules on leaves of absence and
employee discipline, still we find the penalty of dismissal imposed on her unjustified under
the circumstances. As earlier mentioned, Michelle had been in Cavite Apparels employ for
six years, with no derogatory record other than the four absences without official leave in
question, not to mention that she had already been penalized for the first three absences,
the most serious penalty being a six-day suspension for her third absence on April 27, 2000.