Insubordination or willful disobedience requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being 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.

The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee.

The offenses committed by employee should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other.

While it may be true that an employee may have been penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the

record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee’s past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty.

Despite the sanctions imposed upon an employee, he may have continued to commit misconduct and exhibit undesirable behavior on board. Indeed, the employer cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests. It has the right to dismiss such an employee if only as a measure of self-protection.

To be sure, the totality of an employee’s infractions is considered and weighed in determining the imposable sanction for the current infraction. It presupposes that the employee is already found guilty of the new violation, as in this case.

Apropos, it is also worth mentioning that when the employer had already previously warned an employee that the penalty for his next infraction would be elevated to dismissal and he committed the same violation, he may be dismissed from service. Thus, the dismissal of employee in this case, on the basis of the principle of totality of infractions, may be justified. (Villanueva vs. Ganco Resort and Recreation, Inc., G.R. No. 227175, January 08, 2020)

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

Previous offenses may be used to aggravate a subsequent infraction to justify an employee’s dismissal only if they are related to the subsequent offense upon which termination is  decreed. (Celis vs. Bank of Makati (A Savings Bank), Inc., G.R. No. 250776. June 15, 2022)

In the Celis case, the Supreme Court (SC) reckons that in 2016, the company previously found the employee liable for the following infractions: (1) improper conduct and acts of gross discourtesy or disrespect to fellow employees; and (2) personal borrowing from the bank’s clients.

On account of these infractions, the company placed Celis under a 10-day and 15-day suspension, respectively.

The SC ratiocinated that while Celis had committed two previous offenses, the Principle of Totality of Infractions cannot be utilized against her as she committed no subsequent violation of respondent’s Code of Conduct. She did not commit the subject infraction. Simply put, there is no subsequent offense which her previous infractions could aggravate.

But even assuming that Celis had committed the subject infraction, the CA still erred in applying the Principle of Totality of Infractions considering that her previous infractions and the subject offense

upon which her termination was decreed were in no way related to each other.

Instructive on this matter is the case of Sy vs. Neat, Inc., wherein the SC ruled that the Principle of Totality of Infractions cannot be used against the employee because his transgression for wearing an improper uniform was not related to his latest infractions of insubordination and purported poor performance evaluation.

Previous offenses may be used as valid justification for dismissal only if they are related to the subsequent offense upon which the basis of termination is decreed, or if they have a  bearing on the proximate offense warranting dismissal.

In the case of De Guzman vs. NLRC, the SC ruled that the Principle of Totality of Infractions applies when prior infractions are similar to the subsequent offense. In such case, the SC instructs that the previous offense that employee involved had committed on 3 July 1993 for willful refusal to perform one’s assigned work or to comply with instruction of supervisor, for which she had been administered a sufficient disciplinary sanction of six days suspension, could no longer be utilized to aggravate the present offense.

De Guzman’s previous offense was an entirely separate and distinct violation of company rules. The SC held that the correct rule is that previous infractions may be used as justification for an employee’s dismissal from work in connection with a subsequent similar offense.

For the SC, in the Celis case, the first offense of Celis, i.e., discourtesy or disrespect to fellow employees, was an offense concerning improper behavior towards co-workers. On the other hand, her second offense, i.e., personal borrowing from the   bank’s clients, was a transgression relating to conflict of interest. The subject infraction differs from the aforementioned offenses in that, the subject infraction concerns dishonesty.

Celis’ infractions not being related or similar in nature to the present charge, the CA erred in applying the Principle of Totality of Infractions against her. Indubitably, the company failed to substantially prove that her dismissal from employment was for a just cause.

All told, the SC found substantial evidence to support the finding that the company illegally dismissed Celis from employment. Thus, the CA erred in imputing grave abuse of discretion against the NLRC. The SC agreed with the labor tribunals that Celis was indeed illegally terminated from her job.

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