Photo from Unsplash | Ibrahim Boran
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:
An employer may terminate an employment for serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or his representative in connection with his work. (Article 297, par. a, Labor Code)
For an employee to be validly dismissed on the ground of willful disobedience, the employer’s orders, regulations, or instructions must be:
(1) reasonable and lawful,
(2) sufficiently known to the employee, and
(3) in connection with the duties which the employee has been engaged to discharge. (St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. v. Maria Theresa Sanchez (G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015)
Is theft of company property a valid ground for termination of employment? This is the issue in the case of St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. v. Maria Theresa Sanchez (G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015).
Maria Theresa Sanchez (Sanchez) was hired by St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. (SLMC) as a Staff Nurse. She was terminated for violation of SLMC’s Code of Discipline particularly Section 1, Rule 1 on Acts of Dishonesty, i.e., Robbery, Theft, Pilferage, and Misappropriation of Funds.
As it turns out, upon standard inspection in SMLC Centralization Entrance and Exit, Sanchez was found to be in possession of several medical supplies inside her bag. She asked the security guard who conducted the inspection if she could just return the supplies. However, the security guard refused and she was brought to the In-House Security Department of SLMC. She was then directed to write an incident report explaining why she had the medical stocks in her possession. Her letter of apology, she admitted that she was able to take medical supplies out of the hospital little by little so that she would have stocks to use in case supplies were limited.
In an addendum to her Incident Report, she explained that the questioned items came from the medication drawers of patients who had already been discharged, and, as similarly practiced by the other staff members, she started saving these items as excess stocks in her pouch, along with other basic items that she uses during her shift. She then put the pouch inside the lowest drawer of the bedside table in the treatment room for use in immediate procedures in case replenishment of stocks gets delayed. However, on the day of the incident, she failed to return the pouch inside the medication drawer upon getting her tri-colored pen and calculator and, instead, placed it inside her bag. Eventually, she forgot about the same as she got caught up in work, until it was noticed by the guard on duty on her way out of SMLC’s premises.
Sanchez was placed under preventive suspension effective June 3, 2011 until the conclusion of the investigation of SLMC’s Employee and Labor Relations Department which required her to explain why she should not be terminated from service for acts of dishonesty due to her possession of SLMC’s medical supplies. In her explanation letter, she reiterated her claims in her addendum to the Incident Report. She requested a case conference which was granted by SLMC.
On July 4, 2011, SLMC informed Sanchez of its decision to terminate her employment effective July 6, 2011. This prompted her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against SLMC.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Sanchez was validly dismissed for intentionally taking the property of SLMC for her own personal benefit which constitutes an act of dishonesty under SLMC’s Code of Conduct. This Decision was reversed by the National Labor Relations Commission and Court of Appeals, saying that Sanchez was illegally dismissed.
The Supreme Court ruled that an employer has the right to regulate all aspects of employment, aptly called “management prerogative”. It gives employers the freedom to regulate, according to their discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignment, working methods, processes to be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.
Jurisprudence says:
“Among the employer’s management prerogatives is the right to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business or concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same would be complied with.
At the same time, the employee has the corollary duty to obey all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the employer; and willful or intentional disobedience thereto, as a general rule, justifies termination of the contract of service and the dismissal of the employee.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Article 297 of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employment for serious misconduct or willful disobedience.
The law says:
Article 296. Termination by Employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or his representative in connection with his work;
(b) xxx (Emphasis in the original.)
The Supreme Court further added that for an employee to be validly dismissed on this ground, the employer’s orders, regulations, or instructions must be:
- reasonable and lawful,
- sufficiently known to the employee, and
- in connection with the duties which the employee has been engaged to discharge.
Tested against the foregoing, the Supreme Court ruled that Sanchez was validly dismissed by SLMC for her willful disregard and disobedience of Section 1, Rule I of the SLMC Code of Discipline, which reasonably punishes acts of dishonesty, particularly “theft, pilferage of hospital or co-employee property, x x x or its attempt in any form or manner from the hospital, co-employees, doctors, visitors, [and] customers (external and internal)” with termination from employment.
Such act is obviously connected with Sanchez’s work, who, as a staff nurse, is tasked with the proper stewardship of medical supplies. Significantly, records show that Sanchez made a categorical admission in her handwritten letter saying “kahit alam kong bawal ay nagawa kong makapag-uwi ng gamit” – that despite her knowledge of its express prohibition under the SLMC Code of Discipline, she still knowingly brought out the subject medical supplies with her.
SLMC Code of Discipline is further supplemented by the company policy requiring the turn-over of excess medical supplies/items for proper handling and providing a restriction on taking and bringing such items out of the SLMC premises without the proper authorization or “pass” from the official concerned, which Sanchez was equally aware thereof. Nevertheless, Sanchez failed to turn-over the questioned items and, instead, “hoarded” them, as purportedly practiced by the other staff members in the Pediatric Unit. As it is clear that the company policies subject of this case are reasonable and lawful, sufficiently known to the employee, and evidently connected with the latter’s work, the Court concludes that SLMC dismissed Sanchez for a just cause. (Source: St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc. v. Maria Theresa Sanchez (G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015)
Read also: Theft inside the Company Premises: Remedies of the Employer
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.