Photo from WikiMedia (Aerous)
“Omission of past employment is not a just cause to terminate an employee,” the Supreme Court has held in the recent case of Nancy Claire Celis v. Bank of Makati (G.R. No. 250776, June 15, 2022).
Petitioner Nancy Celis, an Administrative Officer of the Legal and External Agency Department of the Bank of Makati’s Pasay City Branch, was dismissed for violating the Bank of Makati’s Code of Conduct and Discipline for “knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment as a result of which employment is secured” following a report that Celis was previously employed in the Rural Bank of Placer in Surigao del Norte and was involved in a case concerning embezzlement of funds. Celis’ employment was also terminated, after investigation and hearing, on the ground of “serious misconduct, fraud, or willful breach of trust and loss of confidence” under the Labor Code.
Celis thereafter filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, monetary claims, and damages against the Bank of Makati claiming that the omission of her past employment with the Bank of Placer was done in good faith and that the Bank of Makati failed to prove her involvement in the embezzlement case.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Celis and ruled that she was illegally dismissed, holding that her failure to state her past employment was not a serious offense that would justify suspension and termination while noting that Celis was never administratively found guilty of the supposed charge of embezzlement against the Rural Bank of Placer, which allowed her to resign without any derogatory record. This was upheld by the National Labor Relations Office, but was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals and ruled that considering that she did not actually state any false information in her job application but merely omitted to reflect her past employment with the Bank of Placer, she could not have committed the alleged infraction of allegedly violating the Bank’s Code of Conduct for concealing her previous employment.
The Supreme Court further held that Celis’ case is merely a case of an omission to disclose former employment in a job application, a fault which does not justify petitioner’s suspension and eventual termination from employment. The Court further discussed that the penalty must be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.
“To dismiss a petition on account of her omission to disclose former employment is just too harsh a penalty,” the Supreme Court held.
Under the Labor Code, just causes of termination refer to serious misconduct, willful disobedience or insubordination, gross and habitual neglect of duties, fraud or willful breach of trust, loss of confidence, commission of a crime or offense, and other analogous causes.
Read the full text of the case here:
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/29851/
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.