Q: What are just causes for termination? A: Just causes for termination are: 1. Serious misconduct; 2.

Willful disobedience
of a lawful order; 3. Gross and habitual neglect of duty; 4. Fraud; 5. Willful breach of trust; 6. Commission of a crime
against the person of the employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and 7.
Analogous causes.

this can be found in Art 297 (282) of the Labor Code

These refer to causes that are directly attributable to the fault or negligence of the employee." They are "just causes"
because the termination of employment is justified due to an employee's actions, behavior, or omission, which either
result in a serious or grave violation of the law, employment contract, company policies, collective bargaining agreement,
and other employment agreement. It is a management prerogative to impose the penalty of dismissal on the erring
employee.

Q: What type of employees can be terminated for just cause/s? A: It covers all employees, regardless of status or rank,
whether rank-or-file, supervisory, managerial, whether regular, probationary, casual, project, seasonal, or fixed-term.

Q: What happens if an employee is dismissed without just cause? A: If an employer terminates an employee without a
just cause, the employer shall be held liable for illegal dismissal. Only the absence of a just cause of the termination of
employment can make the dismissal of an employee illegal.

ART. 297 (282). 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 representative in
connection with his work;

(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of
his family or his duly authorized representatives; and

(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

Q: What are just causes for termination?

A: Just causes for termination are:

1. Serious misconduct;

Serious Misconduct

What constitutes "serious misconduct"?

For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following elements must concur: (a) the
misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties showing that the employee has
become unfit to continue working for the employer; and ( c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent.

Examples: Sexual intercourse inside company premises, gambling within company premises, challenging superiors to a
fight, possession or use of drugs, deceiving a customer for personal gain, pilferage or theft of company-owned property
are examples of serious misconduct.

Professor X
Adamson University Faculty Union vs. Adamson University, March 9, 2020

Petitioner Delos Reyes was a university professor and the assistant chairperson of the Social Sciences Department of
Adamson University and concurrent president of the Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union. Adamson
received an administrative complaint against Delos Reyes alleging that Delos Reyes violated the University Code of
Conduct and Republic Act No. 7610 for abusing Josephine’s daughter, Paula Mae. By Josephine's account, Paula Mae
encountered Delos Reyes as the professor was about to enter the faculty room of the Department of Foreign Languages.
Paula Mae was holding the doorknob on her way out of the office, while Delos Reyes held the doorknob on the other side.
When Paula Mae stepped aside, Delos Reyes allegedly exclaimed the words "anak ng puta" and walked on without any
remorse. This caused emotional trauma to Paula Mae. Delos Reyes was issued a Notice of Dismissal. He sought
reconsideration, but this was denied. Adamson put out a paid advertisement on the Philippine Daily Inquirer's newspaper
and website, which Delos Reyes claimed tarnished his reputation by announcing his dismissal

Page 1 of 14
Misconduct is not considered serious or grave when it is not performed with wrongful intent. If the misconduct is only
simple, not grave, the employee cannot be validly dismissed.

Ruling:

A teacher exclaiming "anak ng puta" after having encountered a student is an unquestionable act of misconduct.
However, whether it is serious misconduct that warrants the teacher's dismissal will depend on the context of the phrase's
use. "Anak ng puta" is similar to "putang ina" in that it is an expletive sometimes used as a casual expression of
displeasure, rather than a personal attack or insult. In Pader v. People

In Reyes vs. People, we ruled that the expression "putang ina mo" is a common enough utterance in the
dialect that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or displeasure. In fact, more
often, it is just an expletive that punctuates one's expression of profanity. We do not find it seriously insulting
that after a previous incident involving his father, a drunk Rogelio Pader on seeing Atty. Escolango would
utter words expressing anger. Obviously, the intention was to show his feelings of resentment and not
necessarily to insult the latter. Being a candidate running for vice mayor, occasional gestures and words of
disapproval or dislike of his person are not uncommon.78 (Citation omitted)

A review of the records reveals that the utterance in question, "anak ng puta," was an expression of annoyance or
exasperation. Both petitioner and Paula Mae were pulling from each side of the door, prompting the professor to exclaim
frustration without any clear intent to maliciously damage or cause emotional harm upon the student. That they had not
personally known each other before the incident, and that petitioner had no personal vendetta against Paula Mae as to
mean those words to insult her, confirm this conclusion.

However, it is petitioner's succeeding acts that aggravated the misconduct he committed. He not only denied committing
the act, but he also refused to apologize for it and even filed a counter-complaint against Paula Mae for supposedly
tarnishing his reputation. He even refused to sign the receiving copy of the notices that sought to hold him accountable for
his act.

While uttering an expletive out loud in the spur of the moment is not grave misconduct per se, the refusal to acknowledge
this mistake and the attempt to cause further damage and distress to a minor student cannot be mere errors of judgment.
Petitioner's subsequent acts are willful, which negate professionalism in his behavior. They contradict a professor's
responsibility of giving primacy to the students' interests and respecting the institution in which he teaches. In the interest
of self-preservation, petitioner refused to answer for his own mistake; instead, he played the victim and sought to find fault
in a student who had no ill motive against him.

Indeed, had he been modest enough to own up to his first blunder, petitioner's case would have gone an entirely different
way.
Misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule
of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of
judgment. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning of the act must be of such a grave and aggravated character
and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the
work of the employee to constitute just cause from his separation. (Adamson University Faculty Union vs. Adamson
University, March 9, 2020)
https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2020marchdecisions.php?id=223

Chatty employee

Perez vs JP Morgan Chase November 13, 2023

Janssen D. Perez was a customer service representative under Human Resources Department of JP Morgan

Perez was accused of using the Office Communicator, a private chatroom for employees, to talk about agents,
supervisors, and other colleagues using indecent, profane, and disrespectful language with other employees. Perez
admitted to responding "hahaha" and "up down up down left right le[f]t right" in the private chatroom, but he denied using
profane and abusive language.

LIkewise, he admitted knowing that obscenity was prohibited in the company's Code of Conduct and pinpointed his
responses in the Office Communicator. Perez denied the charges but admitted that he "was guilty of using the company
resources improperly."

The SC upheld the findings of the CA as follows

First, the Office Communicator is a work tool provided by petitioner for easy communication among its employees
strictly for office-related matters. This is a fact known to Perez but he and his co-employees used the office chatroom for
private and lewd conversations instead.

Second, the conversation in the chatroom was carried out between Perez and co-workers making reference to female
employees and other colleagues, using very obscene and offensive language (such as "send ko senyo pic namin habang

Page 2 of 14
dinidilaan ko tinggil nya" ''kinain nyo ba puke nya," ''halos luwa na dede," "sarap ikiskis yung ulo ng etits ko sa katawan
nya" and many others.)

Third, it must be emphasized that Perez was an employee of the HR department and he had been in the office for
more than six years when the investigation was started. As such, he is expected to be fully aware and very much familiar
with office rules and regulations, including the company's Guidelines on Work [B]ehavior. He was also expected to be a
good example in the implementation of the company policies. Instead, Perez not only tolerated the gross and vulgar
conversation, he actively participated in it.

Fourth, even Perez himself admitted his wrongdoing. As be expressed in his written explanation:

SC added:

Here, petitioner had been an employee of the Human Resources Department for more than six years, and thus, he
was expected to be fully aware of the company rules. His own admission of participating and using the company chatroom
in uttering indecent words about female colleagues and sending out company information to his personal email address
amount to willful transgression of the company's Guidelines on Workplace Behavior. His transgressions patently relate to
the performance of his duties as part of the Human Resources Department, expected as he was to exhibit good conduct.
His acts rendered him unfit to continue working for respondent. Thus, for committing serious misconduct, petitioner was
validly terminated for a just cause.

In return for the extensive obligations to the employee that the law imposes on the employer, the employer can
lawfully and reasonably expect from its employee "not only good performance, adequate work and diligence, but also
good conduct and loyalty.” As such, in the exercise of its management prerogative, the employer can discipline its
employees, impose appropriate penalties on their infractions pursuant to company rules, and may not be compelled to
continue employing persons whose continuance in the service will be inimical to its interests.

Actively participating in profane conversations with coworkers using company resources during office hours and sending
company information to one's personal email address in violation of company rules amount to serious misconduct, which
is a just cause of terminating one's employment. (Perez vs JP Morgan Chase November 13, 2023)

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/nov2023/gr_256939_2023.html

2. Willful disobedience of a lawful order;

Q: What constitutes "willful disobedience"? A: For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, these two
elements must concur: 1. The employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, 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.

Q: What are examples of "willful disobedience"? A: Making false allegations in a complaint, failure to answer to Notices to
Explain, refusal to undergo random drug testing, refusal to render overtime to meet production deadline, and refusal to
comply with lawful transfer are examples of willful disobedience.

driver sweet lover

Mamaril vs The Red System Co. Inc. July 4, 2018

Red System is a company engaged in the business of transporting Coca Cola Products from Coca-Cola warehouses to its
various customers. Mamaril on the other hand was employed as a delivery service representative. Mamaril was assigned
in Davao and was tasked to transport goods from various depots to the end users.

Prior to his employment as a delivery service representative, Mamaril was required to undergo seminars to orient him on
the rules and regulations of Red System. During the orientation, drivers like Mamaril, were reminded to always observe
the following safety rules, namely, to put a tire choke (kalso), engage the hand brake, and shift the transmission to first
gear, before leaving the parked vehicle. These safeguards were necessary to prevent the movement of the truck while
pushed by a forklift during loading and unloading operations.

Unfortunately Mamaril figured in several accidents because he repeatedly failed to put a tire choke, and worse, failed to
shift the gear to 1st gear after parking the truck he was driving. During the administrative hearing. Mamaril admitted that
his failure to engage the hand brake and put a tire choke on the vehicle resulted to damage.

Ruling: SC upheld Mamaril’s dismissal.

In the case at bar, it bears noting 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
Page 3 of 14
Red System's good will.

It bears noting that 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, Mamaril 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 Mamaril. Accordingly, Mamaril was duty-
bound to comply with such safety orders, as his main task consisted in driving and delivering fragile products. This
notwithstanding, Mamaril still willfully and negligently failed to abide by the safety rules.

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." (Mamaril vs The Red
System Co. Inc. July 4, 2018)

neren neren sinta

NEREN VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER, VS. GANCO RESORT AND RECREATION, INC. G.R. No. 227175, January 08,
2020

Petitioner Villanueva is the head of Front Desk Department, she was charged with violating company policies,for which
she was meted the penalty of two days suspension without pay subject to the agreement that petitioner would be under
strict performance monitoring and that any further violation which would warrant suspension would be elevated to
immediate dismissal. After serving her suspension, petitioner resumed her task as a receptionist. Subsequently,,
petitioner was transferred from the Front Desk Department to Storage Department without diminution in rank and benefits.

However, petitioner refused to sign the Notice to Transfer and remained at the reception area for two days before
reporting to her new station. Petitioner also sent an e-mail addressed to the management on March 9, 2014 asking
questions regarding her transfer.

A Memorandum was issued to petitioner directing her to explain within 24 hours from notice why she should not be
penalized for insubordination for her repeated failure to sign the Notice to Transfer. In her handwritten letter dated March
11, 2014, petitioner explained that she refused to sign the Notice to Transfer pending answers to the questions she sent
to the management via e-mail.

Petitioner was handed the Termination Notice dated March 21, 2014 advising her that the management found her guilty of
"inhuman and unbearable treatment to person in authority; abuse of authority; serious misconduct - insubordination by not
accepting her memorandum of re-assignment by the Executive Committee; and gross and habitual neglect of duties
AWOL" and had decided to terminate her from employment effective immediately.

Ruling of the Supreme COurt: Petitioner withheld her signature on the Notice to Transfer because she was awaiting
answers to the questions she raised to the management via e-mail. She cannot be forced to affix her signature thereon if
she does not really fully understand the reasons behind and the consequences of her transfer. While her action is willful
and intentional, it is nonetheless far from being "wrongful and perverse." In addition, respondents failed to prove that there
is indeed an order or company procedure requiring a transferee's written conformity prior to the implementation of the
transfer, and that such order or procedure was made known to petitioner.

Given the foregoing, there is no basis to dismiss petitioner on the ground of insubordination for her mere failure to sign the
Notice to Transfer.

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. NEREN VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER, VS. GANCO RESORT AND
RECREATION, INC. G.R. No. 227175, January 08, 2020

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jan2020/gr_227175_2020.html

3. Gross and habitual neglect of duty;

Gross and habitual neglect of duties means that there is more than one single or isolated acts of negligence that are gross
in nature.

Q: What are examples of "gross and habitual neglect of duties"? A: Tardiness or absenteeism, repeated failure to perform
one's duties for a period of time, unsatisfactory or poor performance, inefficiency and incompetence that amount to gross
and habitual neglect of duties are examples of gross and habitual neglect of duties.

Page 4 of 14
Gross neglect implies a want or absence of or failure to exercise even slight care or diligence, or the entire absence of
care. It evinces a thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting any effort to avoid them.

Tirso
Systems and Plan Integrator v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. 217119 (2022)

Facts:

● Michelle Elvi C. Ballesteros worked for Systems and Plan Integrator and Development Corporation (SPID Corp.)
as administrative staff.
● Subsequently, Ballesteros was asked by the company to resign because she was pregnant and going to have two
children to take care of.
● Ballesteros refused to resign and was offered two options: to resign and receive a clear Certificate of Employment
or to be terminated and receive one month's salary and 13th-month pay.
● Ballesteros refused to resign and was eventually terminated by the company allegedly due to her incompetence,
inefficiency, habitual absences, and tardiness.

Ruling:

Here, the Court finds that although habitual tardiness is a just cause for termination, the company failed again to
substantiate Ballesteros' habitual tardiness and undertime, as the generated print-outs presented to the NLRC were mere
photocopies and unauthenticated. The Court had previously disregarded unsigned listings and computer printouts
presented in evidence by the employer to prove its employee's absenteeism and tardiness. In the case at bar, the
handwritten listing and unsigned computer print-outs were unauthenticated and, hence, unreliable. Mere self-
serving evidence of which the listing and print-outs are of that nature should be rejected as evidence without any
rational probative value even in administrative proceedings.

Similarly, absent reliable and reasonable proof that Ballesteros was indeed habitually tardy, and habitually incurred
undertime for more than 10 days in a month for six months, the Court cannot conclude that she is guilty of gross and
habitual neglect of duty.

Habitual tardiness alone is a just cause for termination. Punctuality is a reasonable standard imposed on every employee,
whether in government or private sector, whereas habitual tardiness is a serious offense that may very well constitute
gross or habitual neglect of duty, a just cause to dismiss a regular employee. Habitual tardiness manifests lack of
initiative, diligence and discipline that are inimical to the employer's general productivity and business interest. [Systems
and Plan Integrator v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. 217119 (2022)]

https://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=93134:68365&catid=1686&Itemid=566

Another form of Gross and habitual neglect of duty is abandonment. Q: What constitutes "abandonment of work"? A: It
has been defined as "a clear and deliberate intent to discontinue one's employment without any intention of returning
back." Abandonment of work is not provided in the Labor Code but is jurisprudentially considered a form of neglect of
duty.

Q: What are the elements of "abandonment of work"? A: An act constitutes an abandonment of work when: ( 1) there is
failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear intention to sever the employer-
employee relationship. Absence must be accompanied by overt acts unerringly pointing to the fact that the employee
simply does not want to work anymore, and the employer has the burden of proof to show _a deliberate and unjustified
refusal of the employee to resume his employment without any intention of returning.

energy extreme

Robustan vs CA March 15, 2021

● Wilfredo Wagan - a service engineer employed by Robustan, Inc.

● Wagan's responsibilities included resolving customer needs and concerns regarding medical equipment, as well
as maintenance and construction works.
● Wagan initially worked at the Manila office but was later assigned to the newly opened Cebu branch.
● Wagan was allowed to sleep in the office since he couldn't find a place to stay in Cebu.
● Wagan was the only employee on site until a new branch manager was hired.

Allegations and Memorandum

Page 5 of 14
 ● On December 21, 2009, Wagan received a memorandum stating that two fire extinguishers had gone missing
from the Cebu branch office.
● The memorandum also noted that Wagan was using office equipment for personal use.
● Robustan asked Wagan to explain why his employment should not be terminated.
● Wagan explained that the fire extinguishers must have been stolen while he was busy painting the office and
offered to pay for their value in installments.
● However, on January 4, 2010, Wagan received another memorandum terminating his employment for "violation of
trust and confidence."
● Thereafter he was ordered to return to the office to complete the company's turnover procedure. When he did not
heed this order, he was then accused of abandonment.

Abandonment, as just cause for dismissal from work, is analogous to gross and habitual neglect of duty. It must likewise
be proven by the employer:

The burden to prove whether the employee abandoned ills or her work rests on the employer. Thus, it is
incumbent upon petitioner to prove the two (2) elements of abandonment. First, petitioner must provide
evidence that respondent failed to report to work for an unjustifiable reason. Second, petitioner must prove
respondent's overt acts showing a clear intention to sever his ties with petitioner as his employer.

Thus, petitioner's argument fails to convince, as the records would indicate that respondent's employment had already
been terminated by the time he supposedly abandoned his work. Nothing in the records shows respondent's failure to
report for work prior to his receipt of the January 4, 2010 termination notice. It would have been unreasonable to expect
him to continue reporting for work after having been notified of his dismissal. Thus, petitioner's claim of abandonment is
baseless, as in Manarpiis v. Texan Philippines, Inc.:67

Abandonment in this case was a trumped up charge, apparently to make it appear that petitioner was not yet
terminated when she filed the illegal dismissal complaint and to give a semblance of truth to the belated
investigation against the petitioner. Petitioner did not abandon her work but was told not to report for work
anymore after being served a written notice of termination of company closure on July 27, 2000 and turning
over company properties to respondent Rialubin-Tan.68 (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, respondent's order to complete the company's turnover procedure is not an order to return to work, as there was no
longer any work to return to at that point. This claim of abandonment deserves no further consideration.

In any event, Tan Brothers Corporation v. Escudero69 reiterates that abandonment of work is a "matter of intention" that
must be proven by the employer with substantial evidence:

It is, on the other hand, doctrinal that abandonment is a matter of intention and cannot, for said reason, be
lightly inferred, much less legally presumed from certain equivocal acts. Viewed in the light of Escudero's
persistence in reporting for work despite the irregular payment of her salaries starting July 2003, we find that
her subsequent failure to do so as a consequence of Tan Brothers' non-payment of her salaries in May 2004
is hardly evincive of an intention to abandon her employment. Indeed, mere absence or failure to report for
work, even after a notice to return work has been served, is not enough to amount to an abandonment of
employment. Considering that a notice directing Escudero to return to work was not even issued in the
premises, we find that the CA committed no reversible error in ruling out Tan Brother's defense of
abandonment.70 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Here, petitioner failed to prove respondent's intention to abandon his work. Per the records, respondent asked for leniency
and time to improve his skills when he was cited for poor work performance. Respondent also immediately offered to pay
for the lost properties, indicating his intention to compensate petitioner for its losses. Moreover, he protested his layoff
from work, negating the second element of a "clear intention to sever" the employer-employee relationship. Petitioner's
insistence that respondent did not turn over his responsibilities after being dismissed proves neither abandonment nor bad
faith.

Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified refusal of an employee to resume his employment. It is a form of neglect of
duty, hence, a just cause for termination of employment by the employer. For a valid finding of abandonment, these two
factors should be present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear
intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with the second as the more determinative factor which is manifested
by overt acts from which it may be deduced that the employees has [sic] no more intention to work. The intent to
discontinue the employment must be shown by clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified. (Robustan vs CA March
15, 2021)

4. Fraud;

Q: What constitutes "fraud"? A: An employee's act constituted "fraud" when: (1) such employee holds a position of trust
and confidence, either as a managerial employee or a fiduciary rank-and-file employee; (2) the employee commits an act
would justify the loss of trust and confidence of the employer; (3) the loss of trust and confidence is based on willful
breach of trust done intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully and without justifiable facts; and ( 4) such loss of trust
related to the employee's performance of duties. 528
Page 6 of 14
Q: What are the kinds of corporate positions of trust? A: There are two kinds: (1) Managerial employees; and (2) Fiduciary
rank-and-file employees routinely charged with the care and custody of the employee's money or property.

feedmills of your mind

MANUEL C. FELIX vs. ENERTECH SYSTEMS INDUSTRIES, INC. and COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 142007
March 28, 2001

Respondent Enertech System Industries, Incorporated is engaged in the manufacture of boilers and tanks. Petitioner Felix
worked as a welder/fabricator in respondent company. Petitioner and three other employees were assigned to install a
smokestack at the Big J Feedmills. During the entire period they were working at the Big J Feedmills, petitioner and his
companions accomplished daily time records (DTRs). Petitioner wrote in his DTR that he had worked eight hours a day on
the basis of which his wages were computed.1âwphi1.nêt

The work was estimated to be completed within seven days, but it actually took the workers until August 17, 1994, or
about two weeks, before it was finished.

SC upheld the dismissal because petitioner put in less than the required eight hours daily work during his detail at the Big
J Feedmills and, therefore, his dismissal was in accordance with the Company Code of Discipline and the Labor Code.

Falsification of time cards constitutes serious misconduct and dishonesty or fraud, which are just causes for the
termination of employment.

Falsification of time cards constitutes serious misconduct and dishonesty or fraud, which are just causes for the
termination of employment. FELIX vs. ENERTECH SYSTEMS INDUSTRIES, INC. and COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No.
142007 March 28, 2001

5. Willful breach of trust;

Cadavas v, CA Cagayan de Oro City, et .al, G.R. 228765, 20 March 2019

Petitioner Minda Cadavas was Nurse Supervisor at Davao Doctors Hospital (DDH)

● In February 2012, Cadavas' aunt was confined at DDH for breast cancer.
● Cadavas, with the help of some hospital staff, obtained supplies and medicines from the Emergency Department
and Operating Room Central Supply Service without recording the transaction.
● The items were used in her aunt's operation and were eventually replaced by Cadavas.
● DDH discovered the incident and sent Cadavas a notice to explain.

Cadavas' Explanation

● Cadavas stated that she obtained the supplies and medicines to help her aunt lessen her hospital expenses.
● She claimed that she did not intend to abuse the hospital's property or supplies and that she had the consent and
knowledge of some hospital staff.
● She admitted to violating the hospital's policy but argued that it was a common practice among employees.

(1) Petitioner Cadavas was DDH's Nurse Supervisor, which position is imbued with trust and confidence as she is charged
with the delicate task of overseeing the staff nurses in the Nursing Service Department of DDH;
(2) Petitioner Cadavas, as Nurse Supervisor, requested another hospital staff member, a subordinate employee, not to
record the supplies and medicines she took from the Emergency Department and Operating Room Central Supply
Service so that these items would not be reflected in her aunt's hospital bill. This act was plainly dishonest and it was
admitted by Cadavas herself. Evidently, Cadavas, by her act, breached the trust and confidence reposed in her by DDH.
Holding a supervisory position, Cadavas was expected to set an example for other hospital employees to be faithful to the
hospital rules and policies. Instead, Cadavas committed a dishonest, if not illegal, act and, to achieve her goal, even
directed a subordinate employee to participate in the dishonesty. Even if the items taken were replaced by Cadavas, this
did not exempt her from liability for her offense.
Petitioner Cadavas contends that even if she was a Nurse Supervisor, her position alone should not be deemed as one
imbued with trust and confidence insofar as the act complained of is concerned. Petitioner stressed that the employees
Page 7 of 14
from whom she inquired at the Emergency Room Central Supplies were not her subordinates and she did not exercise
any form of authority or supervision over them. Hence, she did not abuse her position of responsibility in a manner that
would justify the alleged loss of trust and confidence. The staff at the Emergency Room Central Supplies had the last say
and discretion over their responsibilities. To impute all the blame to petitioner for her colleagues' direct actions, letting her
bear the brunt of respondent DDH's disciplinary action and upholding such act of respondent DDH as correct and proper,
is an arbitrary and whimsical exercise of the appellate court's jurisdiction.
Moreover, petitioner contends that the act complained of was not work-related as she was not performing an act related to
her duties and functions as a Nurse Supervisor of the OR-DR, Neonatal ICU, and Hemodialysis Departments. In addition,
the act complained of has been a long-standing practice within the Emergency Department that has been tolerated by
DDH's management, such that when petitioner availed of the same, the penalty of dismissal imposed upon her has
become unjustifiable.
Ruling:
In this case, petitioner Cadavas was a managerial employee. Petitioner was the Nurse Supervisor of the OR-DR,
Neonatal ICU, and Hemodialysis Departments at the time of the incident; hence, she held a position of trust and
confidence as she managed the said departments, having been tasked with the scheduling of the staff nurses within her
departments and overseeing the quality of bedside care being delivered by her staff.
To reiterate, the second requisite for dismissal is that there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and
confidence. Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid cause for dismissal must be based on a willful breach of trust and
founded on clearly established facts. Such breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without
justifiable excuse as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. The basis for
the dismissal must be clearly and convincingly established, but proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary.
The act for which respondent DDH terminated petitioner for loss of trust and confidence is stated in its notice of
termination, thus:
The act of getting medicines and supplies without having the transaction recorded is against hospital policy and practice.
It is an act of dishonesty. As a supervisor, it was her duty and obligation to set the example to your subordinates and
ensure that hospital policies, rules and regulations are enforced. Sadly, she violated the policy and, worse, even
influenced her subordinates to violate policy. Obviously, the employees involved would not have agreed to the
commission of the violation if you had not given them the instruction. Thus, you clearly abused your authority and position.
Although petitioner was not then performing her duties and functions as Nurse Supervisor in her departments;
nevertheless, as an employee and Nurse Supervisor of respondent DDH, she was covered by the policy against the use
of hospital medicines and supplies without recording such use, and purchasing medicines and supplies outside of
respondent hospital to replace hospital medicines and supplies already used. Notably, petitioner was aware of such
hospital policy, but she still violated it. As a Nurse Supervisor holding a position of trust, petitioner was expected to
enforce and observe hospital policies. Clearly, petitioner breached the trust and confidence reposed in her by respondent
DDH by her willful violation of the said hospital policy, causing loss of income to respondent DDH.

The requisites for dismissal on the ground of loss of trust and confidence are: (1) such employee holds a position of trust
and confidence, either as a managerial employee or a fiduciary rank-and-file employee; (2) the employee commits an act
would justify the loss of trust and confidence of the employer; (3) the loss of trust and confidence is based on willful
breach of trust done intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully and without justifiable facts; and (4) such loss of trust
related to the employee's performance of duties. (Cadavas v, CA Cagayan de Oro City, et .al, G.R. 228765, 20 March
2019)

First, the employee must be holding a position of trust; and second, the employer shall sufficiently establish the
employee's act that would justify loss of trust and confidence. The act must be characterized as real wherein the facts that
brought about the act were clearly established, and that the employee committed the same without any justifiable reason.
[Colegio San Agustin v. Montano, G.R. No. 212333 (2022)]

commissioner
San Miguel Corp. v. Gomez, G.R. No. 200815

In this case, the SC qualifies when dismissal on the ground of loss of confidence validly applies to a rank and file
employee. Gomez was assigned as coordinator in the Mailing Department of SMC. C2K is a corporation engaged in
courier and delivery services, which entered into business with SMC as the latter's courier. C2k mentioned that Gomez
had been collecting 25% commission from the total payment received by C2K. An audit was conducted where it was
discovered that Gomez was allegedly involved in anomalies which caused tremendous losses to SMC. SMC claims that it
validly terminated Gomez's services on the grounds of fraud and betrayal of the trust and confidence reposed on her due
to her alleged acceptance of commission from C2K and for allegedly allowing the courier to increase the actual weights of
the packages in order to compensate for her commission.

Loss of confidence should ideally only apply to cases involving (1) employees occupying positions of trust and confidence
or (2) to those situations where the employee is routinely charged with the care and custody of the employer's money or
property. To the first class belong managerial employees, i.e., those vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees or
effectively recommend such managerial actions; and to the second class belong cashiers, auditors, property custodians,
etc., or those who, in the normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant amounts of money or
property, [San Miguel Corp. v. Gomez, G.R. No. 200815 (2020)]
Page 8 of 14
kupit king
Etcuban v. Sulpicio Lines (G.R. No. 148410, 17 Jan. 2005
The petitioner was employed by the respondent as Chief Purser and was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence. As
the Chief Purser, the petitioner handled the funds of the vessel and was the custodian of all the passage tickets and bills
of lading. It was his responsibility, among other things, to issue passage tickets and to receive payments from the
customers of the respondent, as well as to issue the corresponding official receipts therefor. He was also tasked to
disburse the salaries of the crewmen of the vessel.
In a surprise examination, discovered that passenger’s duplicate original of unissued passage tickets already contained
the amount of P88.00 – the fare for adult passengers ALso found was an inordinate amount of ticket issuances for
children at half the fare of P44.00. Acting on what appeared to be strong evidence of short-changing the company,
Etcuban was dismissed. He filed the instant case alleging that even assuming that there was evidence to support the
charges against him, his dismissal from the service is unwarranted, harsh and is not commensurate to his misdeeds,
considering the amount involved is miniscule. However the SC upheld his dismissal saying:
Whether or not the respondent was financially prejudiced is immaterial. Also, what matters is not the amount involved, be
it paltry or gargantuan; rather the fraudulent scheme in which the petitioner was involved, which constitutes a clear
betrayal of trust and confidence. In fact, there are indications that this fraudulent act had been done before, and probably
would have continued had it not been discovered.
In Etcuban v. Sulpicio Lines (G.R. No. 148410, 17 Jan. 2005), the Court held that it is immaterial whether or not the
employer was financially prejudiced. What matters is not the amount involved, be it paltry or gargantuan; rather the
fraudulent scheme in which the petitioner was involved, which constitutes a clear betrayal of trust and confidence.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jan2005/gr_148410_2005.html

monetary shortage in the amount of P1,100.00 cannot be considered substantial and severe, as to justify the company's
loss of trust and confidence Systems and Plan Integrator v. Ballesteros, G.R. No. 217119 (2022)]

6. Commission of a crime against the person of the employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly
authorized representatives;

Q: What constitutes a "commission of a crime or offense"? A: The crime or offense is committed by the employee against
any of the following: (1) Employer; (2) Immediate member of his employer's family; or (3) Employer's duly authorized
representative.

ROBINSONS GALLERIA/ROBINSONS SUPERMARKET CORPORATION and/or JESS MANUEL, Petitioners,

vs.IRENE R. RANCHEZ

The facts of the case are as follows.

Respondent was a probationary employee of petitioner Supermarket. Two weeks after she was hired respondent reported
to her supervisor the loss of cash amounting to Twenty Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-Nine Pesos (₱20,299.00) which
she had placed inside the company locker. The Operations Manager of petitioner Supermarket, ordered that respondent
be strip-searched by the company guards. However, the search on her and her personal belongings yielded nothing.

Respondent acknowledged her responsibility and requested that she be allowed to settle and pay the lost amount.
However, OM did not heed her request and instead reported the matter to the police.

Thereafter, an information for Qualified Theft was filed. Respondent was constrained to spend two weeks in jail for failure
to immediately post bail in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00).

On November 25, 1997, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages.

RUling: SC ruled in favor of Sanchez. Based on the facts on record, petitioners failed to accord respondent
substantive and procedural due process. The haphazard manner in the investigation of the missing cash, which was
left to the determination of the police authorities and the Prosecutor’s Office, left the respondent with no choice but
to cry foul. Administrative investigation was not conducted by petitioner Supermarket. On the same day that the
missing money was reported by respondent to her immediate superior, the company already pre-judged her guilt
without proper investigation, and instantly reported her to the police as the suspected thief, which resulted in her
languishing in jail for two weeks.

The due process requirements under the Labor Code are mandatory and may not be supplanted by police
investigation or court proceedings. The criminal aspect of the case is considered independent of the administrative
aspect. Thus, employers should not rely solely on the findings of the Prosecutor’s Office. They are mandated to
conduct their own separate investigation, and to accord the employee every opportunity to defend himself.
Furthermore, respondent was not represented by counsel when she was strip-searched inside the company
premises or during the police investigation, and in the preliminary investigation before the Prosecutor’s Office.

Page 9 of 14
The due process requirements under the Labor Code are mandatory and may not be supplanted by police investigation or
court proceedings. The criminal aspect of the case is considered independent of the administrative aspect. Thus,
employers should not rely solely on the findings of the Prosecutor’s Office. They are mandated to conduct their own
separate investigation, and to accord the employee every opportunity to defend himself. Furthermore, respondent was not
represented by counsel when she was strip-searched inside the company premises or during the police investigation, and
in the preliminary investigation before the Prosecutor’s Office. (Robinsons vs Sanchez G.R. No. 177937 January 19,
2011)

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_177937_2011.html

(ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Petitioner, v. MARIA THERESA V. SANCHEZ G.R. No. 212054, March 11,
2015)

In this case, no criminal case was filed against the respondent when she took supplies from the hospital. Records reveal
that at the end of her shift, Sanchez passed through the Entrance/Exit where she was subjected to the standard
inspection procedure by the security personnel. In the course thereof, the Security Guard on-duty, noticed a pouch in her
bag and asked her to open the same. When opened, said pouch contained items which 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 explained that keeping excess hospital stocks or “hoarding” was an admitted practice amongst nurses in the Pediatric
Unit which had been tolerated by SLMC management for a long time.

pasok din sa serious misconduct and willful disobedience for violating the company policy against pilferage

Her defense was that there was no criminal case filed against her and that the Hosp did not suffer any losses because the
supplies she took and eventually returned belonged to discharged patients and not the hospital.

Finally, the Court finds it inconsequential that SLMC has not suffered any actual damage. While damage aggravates the
charge, its absence does not mitigate nor negate the employee’s liability. Neither is SLMC’s non-filing of the appropriate
criminal charges relevant to this analysis. An employee’s guilt or innocence in a criminal case is not determinative of the
existence of a just or authorized cause for his or her dismissal. It is well-settled that conviction in a criminal case is not
necessary to find just cause for termination of employment, as in this case. Criminal and labor cases involving an
employee arising from the same infraction are separate and distinct proceedings which should not arrest any judgment
from one to the other. (ST. LUKE’S MEDICAL CENTER, INC. vs. SANCHEZ G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015)

https://chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015marchdecisions.php?id=206

7. Analogous causes.

“Analogous causes” – refer to similar serious and grave violations/offenses similar in character and gravity as the other
just causes, namely: serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross and habitual neglect of duty, fraud, willful breach of
trust, commission of a crime

An analogous just cause must be:

(1) similar to the specific just causes; and

(2) due to the voluntary and/or willful act or omission of the employee.

Q: What are examples of "analogous causes"? A: Under jurisprudence, violation of company rules and regulations, theft of
property of a co-employee, insubordination, loss of trust and confidence, attitude problem, excessive tardiness or
absences, discourteous/impolite remarks against a superior, incompetence or inefficiency, failure to attain work quota.

DOLE Standards for analogous causes:

1) There must be act or omission similar to those specified just causes;
2) The act or omission must be voluntary and/or willful on the part of the employees; and,
3) No act or omission shall be considered as analogous cause unless expressly specified in the company rules and
regulations or policies. (Section 5.2[g], Rule I-A, DOLE D.O. 147-15)

YRASUEGI v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., G.R. No. 168081, 17 October 2008

[The employee – an International Flight Steward – was dismissed for having failed to maintain a weight requirement.]
Page 10 of 14
• [The] case portrays the peculiar story of an international flight steward who was dismissed because of his failure to
adhere to the weight standards of the airline company.

Petitioner Armando G. Yrasuegui was a former international flight steward of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL). He stands five
feet and eight inches (5’8") with a large body frame, the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as mandated by the Cabin and
Crew Administration Manual1 of PAL. Beginning 1984 he was given multiple opportunities to deal with his weight
problems and to fulfill his promise to comply; he weighed at 219 pounds on August 20, 1992 and 205 pounds on
November 5, 1992. On June 15, 1993, petitioner was formally informed by PAL that due to his inability to attain his ideal
weight, "and considering the utmost leniency" extended to him "which spanned a period covering a total of almost five (5)
years," his services were considered terminated "effective immediately."

[Resolution]
• A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion than that they constitute a continuing
qualification of an employee in order to keep the job. Tersely put, an employee may be dismissed the moment he is
unable to comply with his ideal weight as prescribed by the weight standards. The dismissal of the employee would thus
fall under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code...

The failure to meet and observe a continuing qualification may be an analogous cause that could justify the dismissal of
an employee. (Yrasuegi v. PAL G.R. No. 168081, 17 October 2008)

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_168081_2008.html
Rayel vs PLTHSC G. R. No. 174893 : July 11, 2012

Petitioner is a Corporate Human Resources (CHR) Director for Manufacturing, as such she received a Prerequisite Notice
asking her to file a reply and/or memorandum to the following accusations:

Letter to Explain

1. On numerous occasions, in the presence of colleagues and subordinates, petitioner allegedly made statements
that serve to undermine the Company efforts at pursuing the HR2 Program. such remarks are highly inflammatory
and their negative impact is magnified.
2. inability to incite collaboration and harmony within the Corporate Human Resources Division. According to the
letter, colleagues and subordinates complain of her negative attitude towards the Company, its officers and
people. She is notorious for her temper and have alienated most members of her division. “You ought to have
realized that when exhibited by an officer of your rank, no less than a Director of the Corporate Human Resources
Division, poor interpersonal skills and the lack of moral suasion are extremely damaging.”
3. as a result she garnered an unsatisfactory performance rating, as well as the departure of promising employees
who could not work with her.

The SC gave credence to the affidavits of petitioner’s co-workers that revealed her negative attitude and unprofessional
behavior towards them and the company. Witness testified that the petitioner badmouthed the Corporate Director of HR in
her meetings. They also narrated several instances which demonstrated the petitioner's notoriously bad temper. They all
described her to have an irrational behavior and superior and condescending attitude in the workplace.

attitude problem = loss of trust and confidence

It is therefore without question that the CHR Director for Manufacturing is a managerial position saddled with great
responsibility. Because of this, petitioner must enjoy the full trust and confidence of her superiors. Not only that, she ought
to know that she is bound by more exacting work ethics and should live up to this high standard of responsibility.
However, petitioner delivered dismal performance and displayed poor work attitude which constitute sufficient reasons for
an employer to terminate an employee on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. (Rayel vs PLTHSC G. R. No.
174893 : July 11, 2012)

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012julydecisions.php?id=435

the SC concluded In the case of Aliling vs Wide Wide World Express Corporation G.R. No. 185829, April 25, 2012
that: An employee’s failure to meet sales or work quotas falls under the concept of gross inefficiency, which in turn is
analogous to gross neglect of duty that is a just cause for dismissal under Article 282 of the Code.

Dismissal of regular employees by the employer requires the observance of the two-fold due process, namely: (1)
substantive due process; and (2) procedural due process.

Step 1: Issuance of 1st Written Notice

Page 11 of 14
Step 2: Observance of Ample Opportunity to Explain
Step 3: Issuance of 2nd Written Notice

Lets move forward with Due Process

In the case of Redentor Agustin v. Alphaland Corporation, et. al., (G.R. No. 218282, September 09, 2020), the Supreme
Court ruled that termination of the services of an employee requires the observance of the two-fold due process, to wit:

“Dismissal of regular employees by the employer requires the observance of the two-fold due process, namely: (1)
substantive due process; and (2) procedural due process.

Substantive due process means that the dismissal must be for any of the: (1) just causes provided under Article 297 of
the Labor Code or the company rules and regulations promulgated by the employer; or (2) authorized causes under
Article 298 and 299 thereof.

Procedural due process means that the employee must be accorded due process required under Article 292(b) of the
Labor Code, the elements of which are the twin-notice rule and the employee’s opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself.”

In the case of Brown Madonna Press, Inc. v. Casas (G.R. No. 200898, June 15, 2015), the Supreme Court held that two
separate inquiries must be made in resolving illegal dismissal cases: first, whether the dismissal had been made in
accordance with the procedure set in the Labor Code; and second, whether the dismissal had been for just or authorized
cause. As such, the Supreme Court made this discussion:

“In determining whether an employee’s dismissal had been legal, the inquiry focuses on whether the dismissal
violated his right to substantial and procedural due process. An employee’s right not to be dismissed without
just or authorized cause as provided by law, is covered by his right to substantive due process. Compliance with
procedure provided in the Labor Code, on the other hand, constitutes the procedural due process right of an
employee.

The violation of either the substantive due process right or the procedural due process right of an employee produces
different results. Termination without a just or authorized cause renders the dismissal invalid, and entitles the employee to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time the compensation was not paid up to the time of actual
reinstatement.

An employee’s removal for just or authorized cause but without complying with the proper procedure, on the other hand,
does not invalidate the dismissal. It obligates the erring employer to pay nominal damages to the employee, as penalty for
not complying with the procedural requirements of due process.

Thus, two separate inquiries must be made in resolving illegal dismissal cases: first, whether the dismissal had been
made in accordance with the procedure set in the Labor Code; and second, whether the dismissal had been for just or
authorized cause.”

In the case of Perez v. Philippine Telegraph (G.R. No. 152048, April 07, 2009), the Supreme Court held that as regards
procedural due process, a formal hearing or conference is no longer mandatory. It becomes mandatory only when
requested by the employee in writing, when substantial evidentiary disputes exist, or when a company rule or practice
requires it, or when similar circumstances justify it.

Principle of Totality of Infractions

Page 12 of 14
Lets go back to the case of Professor X. As I have mentioned earlier Prof was absolved for serious misconduct because
his utterance was found to be only simple misconduct considering that it was a mere expression of annoyance or
exasperation

This Court likewise notes the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators' factual finding that a similar complaint had already been filed
against petitioner. In its Decision, it found:

In another occasion, a complaint for verbal abuse was filed against individual complainant by certain parents for and in
behalf of their daughter, a dean's lister of respondent Adamson. However, as indicated by their parents' subsequent letter
to the Director of Office for Student Affairs, they agreed to withdraw the said complaint. Their decision to withdraw the
complaint was due to the parties' understanding that herein individual complainant should also withdraw his separate
complaint against their daughter and the same should not reflect to their daughter's academic record.[79]

The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators also noted that his aggressive behavior extends to his colleagues:

In particular, The Director of Human Resource Department Office called his attention through a memorandum for his
display of unprofessional behavior. The Director personally witnessed complainant that he openly shouted and displayed
dirty finger sign against his immediate superior Chairperson Milagros Urbano.

His subsequent Chairperson Dr. Josielyn Mendoza likewise previously filed a complaint against him for his unruly and
disruptive behavior. Among others, Chairperson Mendoza stated that when she was presiding their social science faculty
meeting and about to present a fellow professor to report the financial expenses during the previous academe conference,
herein individual complainant suddenly interrupted and refused the report to proceed and angrily shouted at her "Tama
na! Mag prankahan tayo!; that individual complainant exclaimed during the same meeting in front of the other faculty
members that Professor Joseph Medillo seems to be the apple of the eyes of their Chairperson; that sometime in 2012,
she was threatened by individual complainant saying "Kapag binigay mokay Don-don xxx ang OJT ... pasasabugin ko ang
departamento xxx Wag kang tumawa, hindi ako nagbibiro, pasasabugin ko talaga ang departamento."; that she previously
witnessed individual complainant challenging Professor Ricky Maano to a fist fight; that "although Prof. Delos Reyes and
his infamous attitude was never an urban legend, I and the Social Science department (his mother department) have
remained deaf and silent in dealing with all his temperaments through the years. There were already a number of
incidents that Prof. Delos Reyes had shown his combative behaviour towards me as the chairperson of the department."

Another separate complaint, Chairperson Mendoza also stated that individual complainant without any provocation
suddenly confronted her while she was having a chat with a professor. She reported that "he looked at me with furious
eyes and poked a finger at my face and said: Kaya ikaw tigilan mo na ang pagsasabi na walang ginagawa ang Union! In a
loud voice and in an intimidating manner. xxx Pasalamat ka at nirerespeto pa kita dahil kay Buknoy! Referring to my
younger brother. xxx his notorious attitude and unprofessional behaviour is not unknown in the university. However, no
matter how disruptive and unruly his behaviour may be towards other members of this University, he can freely do so with
impunity."

On a final note, the open defiance and disrespect to school authorities and processes are magnified in this case as
respondent refused to sign any order served on him. He even used, intentionally or unintentionally the letterhead of the
AUFEA in his letters to the Committee and signed the same as AUFEA President when he is being complained of as a
faculty member and not in his capacity as the Union President. This only shows that respondent had the propensity to
commit and display among his peers and, more so, to the students a misbehavior which is a characteristics (sic) of
misconduct.

The reports reveal petitioner's pugnacious character and ill-mannered conduct. In Sy v. Neat, Inc,[82] this Court discussed
the principle of totality of infractions:

In determining the sanction imposable on an employee, the employer may consider the former's past misconduct and
previous infractions. Also known as the principle of totality of infractions, the Court explained such concept in Merin v.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al., thus:

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 petitioner 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 petitioner was
penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped
Page 13 of 14
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 petitioner, he 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.

HOwever in the case of Celis Vs. Bank of Makati (A Savings Bank), Inc. G.R. No. 250776. June 15, 2022 the SC
refused to apply the same principle. In this case the petitioner was an accounts officer at Bank of Makati, 5 years prior she
was employed at Rural Bank of PLacer where she was implicated in an embezzlement case. In her order of dismissal it
was revealed that Bank of Makati found her guilty of purposely concealing her past employment with the Bank of Placer to
hide her implication in a certain embezzlement case. In meting out the penalty of dismissal, the bank likewise considered
the infractions of Celis in 2016 and the corresponding disciplinary actions imposed on her. Celis filed a case of illegal
dismissal and maintained that her failure to disclose her past employment with the Bank of Placer was done in good faith,
and the bank failed to prove her involvement in the embezzlement case

Ruling:

petitioner had been working with respondent for almost five years already when it raised, out of the blue, the issue
regarding her undisclosed past employment. To the Court, such matter is already water under the bridge. While petitioner
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. As earlier discussed, petitioner did not commit the
subject infraction. Simply put, there is no subsequent offense which petitioner's previous infractions could aggravate.

But even assuming that petitioner had committed the subject infraction, the CA still erred in applying the Principle of
Totality of Infractions considering that petitioner's previous infractions and the subject offense upon which her termination
was decreed were in no way related to each other.

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. (Nancy Claire Pit Celis Vs. Bank of Makati (A
Savings Bank), Inc. G.R. No. 250776. June 15, 2022)

Page 14 of 14