However, this constitutional commitment to the policy of social justice does not mean that every labor dispute shall be automatically decided in favor of labor. It must also be remembered that in protecting the rights of the workers, the law does not authorize the oppression of the employer.

Hence, due regard is likewise given to the right of an employer to manage its operations according to reasonable standards and norms of fair play. This means that an employer has free reign over every aspect of its business, including the dismissal of its employees, as long as the exercise of its management prerogative is done reasonably, in good faith, and in a manner not otherwise intended to defeat or circumvent the rights of workers.

Accordingly, Article 297 of the Labor Code affirms the right of an employer to dismiss a miscreant employee on account of the latter’s willful disobedience.

Significantly, jurisprudence ordains that for an employee to be validly dismissed on the ground of willful disobedience, the employer must prove by substantial evidence that: (i) “the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (ii) 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.

In the case of Mamaril vs. The Red System Company, Inc. [G.R. No. 229920, July 04, 2018], the Supreme Court (SC) held, in ruling for the validity of the dismissal of the employee, that the lifeblood of Red

System’s business is the safe transport and delivery of Coca-Cola products from the warehouse to the customers. As such, Red System imposed stringent guidelines to ensure the safe and efficient delivery of all the products.

Specifically, drivers were repeatedly reminded to place a tire choke, shift the engine to first gear, and pull the hand brake, upon parking the truck. Compliance with these safety measures was essential to prevent the sudden movement of the truck while parked and pushed by a forklift during loading and unloading operations. Likewise, caution was necessary to avoid damage to the new trucks. Moreover, extra-care was mandated in hauling Coca-Cola products to avoid accidents which would result in needless delays and unnecessary expenses and ruin Red System’s good will.

The SC further noted that the Red System was not remiss in reminding its drivers of the importance of abiding by their safety regulations. To ensure a strict observance of the rules, the company required its drivers to attend various safety seminars, in addition to a mandated pre-employment orientation. In fact, the complainant in said case attended a pre-orientation seminar and five safety seminars over the course of his two-year stint with Red System.

Added to this, the safety rules were also written in Red System’s Code of Conduct. There can be no doubt as to the lawfulness, reasonableness and necessity of Red System’s safety instructions. Moreover, the rules pertained to the duties performed by complainant. Accordingly, complainant was duty-bound to comply with such safety orders, as his main task consisted in driving and delivering fragile products. This notwithstanding, the complainant still willfully and negligently failed to abide by the safety rules.

The records show that three days after complainant was employed, he failed to put a tire choke, and worse, shifted the truck’s gear to neutral. As a result, the parked vehicle moved causing damage to Coca-Cola products valued at Php 14,556.00, in addition to the damage he caused to the truck. To make matters worse, instead of reporting the incident to his supervisor, as mandated under Red System’s rules, complainant deliberately concealed the incident. If not for his belated admission in an administrative hearing on a different incident, Red System would not have learned about his prior misdeed.

To make matters worse, complainant was again found to have committed the same violation of Red System’s safety rules. On November 12, 2011, he parked the truck with plate number PIK 726, without again putting a tire choke and engaging the hand brake. Due to his failure to perform the required safety standards, the truck moved backwards and hit another vehicle. This caused damage amounting to Php 25,500.00.

Brazenly, the complainant again purposely concealed the incident. Red System belatedly learned of the accident only after conducting an investigation, after it was surprised to receive Job Order from Motormall Davao Corporation for the repair of the said truck.

Clearly, complainant’s acts constituted a violation of Red System’s company policy. Rule 5, Section 2(b)(3) of Red System’s Code of Conduct penalizes other acts of negligence or inefficiency in the performance of duties or in the care, custody and/or use of company property, funds and/or equipment, where the amount of loss or damage amounts of more than Php 25,000.00. A violation of such rule warrants a penalty of dismissal.

Notably, the complainant violated Red System’s safety rules twice, and caused damage amounting to over Php 40,000.00. To make matters worse, he even deliberately and willfully concealed his transgressions. Such flagrant violation of the rules, coupled with the perversity of concealing the incidents, patently show a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering his acts inconsistent with proper subordination. Indubitably, this shows that complainant was indeed guilty of willful disobedience of Red System’s lawful orders.

Guided by the ruling in St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. v. Sanchez, the SC held that the deliberate disregard or disobedience by an employee of the rules, shall not be countenanced, as it may encourage him or her to do even worse and will render a mockery of the rules of discipline that employees are required to observe. To allow a recalcitrant employee to remain in employ shall amount to coddling an obstinate employee at the expense of the employer.

Thus, taking all the circumstances collectively, the Court is convinced that Red System had sufficient and valid reason for terminating complainant’s services, as his continued employment would be patently inimical to its interest. It is evident from the circumstances that Red System’s decision to terminate him was exercised in good faith, for the advancement of its interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the latter’s rights.

The SC finally held that this valid exercise of management prerogative must be upheld.

See here the procedure to observe when the employee refuses to receive employer’s notice.

In addition, the company should send another copy by registered mail and keep the registry receipt for future reference.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

As a general rule, this ground for termination requires the concurrence of “gross” and “habitual.”

In short, for negligence to be a proper ground for termination, it must not only be gross but must be both “gross and habitual” in character to justify depriving an employee of his means of livelihood.

Simple negligence is not a ground for dismissal of an employee.

A single or an isolated act of negligence which is not “gross and habitual” in nature will not justify termination of services.

Gross negligence connotes want of care in the performance of one’s duties, while habitual neglect implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances. The single or isolated act of negligence does not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee.

“Gross negligence” means an absence of that diligence that an ordinarily prudent man would use in his own affairs. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.

“Habitual negligence” implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for a period of time, depending upon the circumstances.

Negligence cannot be presumed. Once it is alleged, it must be supported by facts or evidence. An employer cannot conclude without proof that an employee is negligent of his duties.

Allegation of negligence must be supported by substantial evidence. Bare claim that an employee is negligent without proof of any particular instance cannot be made as basis to dismiss an employee.

The issue of whether a party is negligent is a question of fact.

In a case where the employer charges an employee with habitual tardiness and absenteeism but the documents allegedly supporting the attendance violation were not signed and mere computer printouts, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

“From the foregoing, there are serious doubts in the evidence on record as to the factual basis of the charges against petitioner. These doubts shall be resolved in her favor in line with the policy under the Labor Code to afford protection to labor and construe doubts in favor of labor. The consistent rule is that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. The employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause. [Dizon v. NLRC, 180 SCRA 52 (1989)]. Not having satisfied its burden of proof, we conclude that the employer dis- missed the petitioner without any just cause. Hence, the termination is illegal.”

How to determine whether an employee is negligent?

It is negligence characterized by want of even a slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as others persons may be affected.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements