Photo from Unsplash | Testalize.me
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Officers and employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the company’s work rules and regulations, which shall be borne by the employer, for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law. (Section 36, R.A. No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
Adoption and enforcement by the employer of its Anti-Drugs Policy is recognized as a valid exercise of its management prerogative as an employer.
In the exercise of its management prerogative, an employer must therefore ensure that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. (Mirant Philippines Corporation v. Joselito Caro, G.R. No. 181490, April 23, 2014)
In the case of Mirant Philippines Corporation v. Jose Caro (G.R. No. 181490, April 23, 2014), the Supreme Court ruled that while an employer’s adoption and enforcement of its Anti-Drugs Policy is recognized as a valid exercise of its management prerogative as an employer, such exercise is not absolute and unbridled. Managerial prerogatives are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and the general principles of fair play and justice. In the exercise of its management prerogative, an employer must therefore ensure that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Joselito Caro (Joselito) was employed by Mirant Philippines Corporation (Mirant) as its Logistics Officer. At the time Joselito filed the case for illegal dismissal, Joselito was a Supervisor at the Logistics and Purchasing Department of Mirant.
On November 3, 2004, Mirant conducted a random drug, where Joselito was randomly chosen among its employees to be tested for illegal drug use. These employees were informed, through an intra company correspondence of the random drug testing that will be conducted on the same day they received the correspondence.
Joselito failed to submit himself to the random drug testing on the same date despite notice and text message from a member of Mirant’s Drug Watch Committee.
On November 8, 2004, Joselito received a Show-Cause Notice from Mirant requiring him to explain in writing why he should not be charged with unjustified refusal to submit to random drug testing. Joselito complied.
Joselito narrated that he was at the Israeli Embassy in the afternoon of November 3, 2004 to confirm a bombing incident in Tel Aviv where his wife was working as a caregiver.
On November 11, 2004, Mirant required Joselito to produce additional evidence in support of his claims. Joselito requested an administrative hearing to explain that he could not submit proof that he was indeed present at the Israeli Embassy during the said day because he was not allegedly allowed entry by the embassy due to security reasons.
Joselito was able to submit the required additional supporting documents on January 3, 2005.
On January 13, 2005, Mirant found Joselito guilty of “unjustified refusal to submit to random drug testing” and meted a penalty of a four-week suspension without pay. However, Assistant Vice President recommended that Joselito be terminated since even if the latter did not outrightly refuse to take the random drug test, he avoided the same, which as argued, is synonymous with refusal.
On February 14, 2005, Joselito received a letter terminating him on the same date.
The issue at hand follows:
Is Mirant’s act of terminating Joselito on account of his alleged “unjustified refusal to submit to random drug testing” valid?
Consequently, may an employer subject its employees to random drug tests?
The Supreme Court ruled that while the adoption and enforcement by Mirant of its Anti-Drugs Policy is recognized as a valid exercise of its management prerogative as an employer, such exercise is not absolute and unbridled.
Managerial prerogatives are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and the general principles of fair play and justice. In the exercise of its management prerogative, an employer must therefore ensure that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. The Anti-Drugs Policy of Mirant fell short of these requirements.
The policy was not clear on what constitutes “unjustified refusal” when the subject drug policy prescribed that an employee’s “unjustified refusal” to submit to a random drug test shall be punishable by the penalty of termination for the first offense. To be sure, the term “unjustified refusal” could not possibly cover all forms of “refusal” as the employee’s resistance, to be punishable by termination, must be “unjustified.” To the mind of the Court, it is on this area where Mirant had fallen short of making it clear to its employees – as well as to management – as to what types of acts would fall under the purview of “unjustified refusal.”
The penalty of termination imposed by petitioner corporation upon respondent fell short of being reasonable. Company policies and regulations are generally valid and binding between the employer and the employee unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law – as in the case at bar.
Section 36 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 explicitly provides that:
Officers and employees of public and private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall be subjected to undergo a random drug test as contained in the company’s work rules and regulations, which shall be borne by the employer, for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace. Any officer or employee found positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt with administratively which shall be a ground for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions of the Labor Code and pertinent provisions of the Civil Service Law.
Under the Guidelines for the Implementation of a Drug-Free Workplace Policies and Programs for the Private Sector (DOLE Department Order No. 53-03, series of 2003), it shall be mandatory for all private establishments employing ten (10) or more workers to formulate and implement drug abuse prevention and control programs in the workplace, including the formulation and adoption of company policies against dangerous drug use.
As such, employers shall require their officials and employees to undergo a random drug test in accordance with the company’s work rules and regulations for purposes of reducing the risk in the workplace.
Additional drug testing may be required for just cause as in any of the following cases:
(i) After workplace-related accidents, including near miss;
(ii) Following treatment and rehabilitation to establish fitness for returning to work/resumption of job; and
(iii) In light of clinical findings and/or upon recommendation of the assessment team.
Related Article/s:
Is refusal to undergo drug testing a valid ground for termination?
Limitations on Management Prerogative
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.