Insubordination or willful disobedience of lawful orders as ground for Employee Dismissal

Insubordination is another ground for dismissal under Article 297 of the Labor Code, as amended. This is also referred to as willful disobedience of lawful orders of the employer or his representatives.

A common situation involving this ground is when a superior gives an order to a subordinate but the latter refuses to comply.

However, for insubordination to arise, the order given must be lawful. There is no duty to perform an illegal act even if the one demanding is a boss. Hence, a superior cannot charge his staff with insubordination if the task he wants done is illegal.

If the willful disobedience by an employee is committed against an unreasonable order or one not connected with his duties, such act cannot be a valid ground for dismissal.[1]

To be valid, the order mentioned here must be:

(1) Reasonable and lawful,

(2) Known to the employee, and

(3) Pertains to the duties which the employee has been engaged to discharge.[2]

What is reasonable depends on the circumstances.

The reasonableness and lawfulness of a rule, order or instruction depend on the circumstances availing in each case.  Reasonableness pertains to the kind or character of directives and commands and to the manner in which they are made.[3]

However, when the law requires that the order must be lawful and reasonable, it does not end there. The act of the employee disregarding such order must also be intentional.

Thus, in order for the ground of “willful disobedience” to be considered a just cause to terminate employment, the following requisites must concur:

(1) The employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and

(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]

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin In Lakpue Drug Inc. v. Belga,[5] willfulness was described as one that is “characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employee’s act inconsistent with proper subordination.[6]

While it is true that the employer may promulgate rules and regulations and enforce the same to the point of dismissal of violators, such prerogative is limited by the standards of good faith and consideration of the plight of worker and circumstances.

As held by the Court, it is true that an employer is given wide latitude of discretion in managing its own affairs. The broad discretion includes the implementation of company rules and regulations and the imposition of disciplinary measures on its employees. But the exercise of a management prerogative like this is not limitless, but hemmed in by good faith and a due consideration of the rights of the worker. In this light, the management prerogative will be upheld for as long as it is not wielded as an implement to circumvent the laws and oppress labor.[7]

It may dawn upon an employee who does not want to comply with an order to file a case questioning its validity thinking that his filing will give him an excuse not to follow such command.

The Supreme Court ruled that it would be dangerous doctrine indeed to allow employees to refuse to comply with rules and regulations, policies and procedures laid down by their employer by the simple expedient of formally challenging their reasonableness or the motives which inspired them, or filing a strike notice with the Department of Labor and Employment, or, what amounts to the same thing, to give the employees the power to suspend compliance with company rules or policies by requesting that they be first subject of collective bargaining. It would be well nigh impossible under these circumstances for any employer to maintain discipline in its establishment.[8]

An employer may issue show-cause memo to an erring employee and require him to answer within a specified period. But the worker may not submit his reply. Can that be considered as willful disobedience?

In one case, failure of an employee to answer memoranda of the employer was held clearly intentional. It showed the employee’s perverse attitude to defy the reasonable orders which undoubtedly pertain to his duties as an employee.[9]

[1] Mañebo vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 107721, January 10, 1994.

[2] Manila Broadcasting Company vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 121975, August 20, 1998 citing BLTC Co. v. Court of Appeals, 71 SCRA 471 (1976); Mañebo v. NLRC, 229 SCRA 240 (1994); Nuez v. NLRC, 239 SCRA 518 (1994); AHS/Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 257 SCRA 319 (1996); Stolt-Nielsen Marine Services (Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC, 258 SCRA 643 (1996); Gregorio Isabelo vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 113366-68, July 24, 1997.

[3] Escobin vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118159, April 15, 1998 citing Azucena, The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol. II, 1993 rev. ed., p. 557.

[4] Micro Sales Operation Network v. NLRC, G.R. No. 155279, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 328, 335-336; R.B. Michael Press vs. Galit, G.R. No. 153510, February 13, 2008.

[5] G.R. No. 166379, October 20, 2005, 473 SCRA 617, 624.

[6] R.B. Michael Press vs. Galit, Ibid.

[7] Dongon vs. Rapid Movers and Forwarders Co., Inc., G.R. No. 163431, August 28, 2013.

[8] GTE Directories Corporation vs. Hon. Augusto s. Sanchez and GTE Directories Corporation Employees Union, G.R. No. 76219, May 27, 1991 citing Batangas Transportation Co. vs. Bagong Pagkakaisa of the Employees and Laborers of the Batangas Trans. Co., 7 Phil. 108, 112 (1949).

[9] Ace Promotion and Marketing Corp. vs. Ursabia, G.R. No. 171703, September 22, 2006.