Presumption of Regular Performance of Duty in Labor Cases in Relation to Serious Misconduct
For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following elements must concur: [Globe Telecom, Inc. vs. Ebitner, G.R. No. 242286, January 16, 2023 citing Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. vs. KMM-Katipunan, 815 Phil. 425 (2017)]
(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.
In a case where the act from which the charges stemmed from is the employee’s duty where he is authorized to do so, the employer has to prove the charges as falling under serious misconduct.
For instance, in the case of Globe Telecom, Inc. vs. Ebitner, the company, in justifying the dismissal, alleges that Ebitner’s failure to follow the SOP in credit adjustments – by indicating a notation – constituted serious misconduct.
The Supreme Court (SC) disagreed, finding that the alleged serious misconduct must have been done with wrongful intent. Globe failed to convincingly prove that the credit adjustment made by Ebitner was done with wrongful intent.
While Globe repeatedly mentions that the credit adjustment was “invalid” it failed to even once bothered to explain why the credit adjustment was deemed invalid, notwithstanding the fact that Ebitner, as Retail
Acquire Mastery of HR/Labor Doctrines, Rules and Principles with Atty. Elvin’s HR Bundle Books at Discounted Rate
Shop Specialist, was authorized to do so as part of her job.
The SC inquired: Was the credit adjustment invalid due to respondent’s relationship with the account holder? Was it because of the lack of notation, which, by the way, petitioner also failed to prove? Was the adjustment completely baseless?
Unfortunately for Globe, the lack of clarity as to why the adjustment was deemed invalid makes it difficult for the SC to determine whether Ebitner was indeed motivated by wrongful intent or not, considering that the same cannot be presumed.
Another circumstance which militates against Globe’s accusations is the fact that Ebitner was authorized to make credit adjustments as Retail Shop Specialist. Thus, her actions, such as making credit adjustments, must be presumed regular unless otherwise clearly proven.
Globe faults Ebitner for making a credit adjustment without the proper notation. However, petitioner again failed to illustrate how the lack of notation, assuming true, translated to serious misconduct. For the 
SC, while a violation of a company procedure may constitute misconduct in the ordinary sense, serious misconduct as a ground for dismissal requires ,wrongful intent.
Therefore, even granting that Ebitner indeed failed to indicate the proper notation in the credit adjustment, Globe was not able to clearly show what was the effect of this lack of notation. The SC queries if the lack of notation concealed the adjustment. Did it hide the identity of the person who made
the adjustment? While it may have relieved her father from paying, was it really unwarranted, therefore depriving petitioner of its lawful income?
Again, the the SC, the company’s failure to clarify these matters leaves the it in the dark. The adjustment may have been perfectly valid and justified, only
without the proper notation. Further, the Court just cannot agree with the assumption that the lack of notation leads to the conclusion that Ebitner intended to make the adjustment undetected.
There is no evidence presented by the company supporting such assumption.
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