Willful Disobedience as Ground for Employee Dismissal

Willful disobedience is ground for dismissal under Article 297 of the Labor Code, as amended.

The Supreme Court found just cause to dismiss the employee for her willful disobedience of the superior’s directives requiring her to explain her absence, violation of school policy and refusal to subject herself to medical examination.

Other cases where disobedience was held willful:

1. Violation of the rule against the use of company-owned vehicles for private purposes without prior authority;
2. Smoking in restricted areas;
3. Refusal to render overtime;
4. Refusal to be transferred when such transfer is valid;

An interesting scenario is the mandatory drug testing to be done in an office environment. May an employee refuse to be tested on constitutional grounds? Can an employee invoke his right to privacy?

In the case of Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board,  the Supreme Court has this to say:

“Taking into account the foregoing factors, i.e., the reduced expectation of privacy on the part of the employees, the compelling state concern likely to be met by the search, and the well-defined limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we hold that the challenged drug test requirements is, under the limited context of the case, reasonable and, ergo, constitutional.”

It follows that since the Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” is not unconstitutional, the drug-testing requirement should be carried out. An employee cannot refuse his participation. Any resistance without justification to any order by the employer may fall under willful disobedience.

The disobedience attributed to the employee could not be justly characterized as willful within the contemplation of Article 297 of the Labor Code. He neither benefitted from it, nor thereby prejudiced the business interest of employer. His explanation that his deed had been intended to benefit the employer was credible. There could be no wrong or perversity on his part that warranted the termination of his employment based on willful disobedience.

One cannot follow an order that he does not know of. Hence, the basic task of employer is to make known such order to his employee.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

The order or mandate of an employer may come in a form of a written policy. But if it is unwritten, will any violation be subject to disciplinary action?

In the case of Manila Broadcasting Company vs. NLRC,  the Supreme Court ruled that a policy may be lawful and reasonable but if the same is not sufficiently known to the employee, the alleged act committed by an employee allegedly in violation thereof may be considered in good faith.

How about if the policy is written but is relaxed in implementation, will any violation constitute willful dis-obedience?

Violation of a rule or policy which, in its implementation, has oftentimes been relaxed, may not lawfully give rise to termination of employment of the violator. More so when the act is with the acquiescence of the employee’s superior.

The mere fact that the numerous infractions of the employee have not been immediately subjected to sanctions cannot be interpreted as condonation of the offenses or waiver of the company to enforce company rules. A waiver is a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known legal right or privilege. It has been ruled that “a waiver to be valid and effective must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a party to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. Hence, the management prerogative to discipline employees and impose punishment is a legal right which cannot, as a general rule, be impliedly waived.

Likewise, if the employee was merely following the instructions of his superior, his act should be deemed in good faith. Clearly, his dismissal from the service on the ground of willful disobedience or violation of company rules and regulations is not justified.

Acquire Mastery of HR/Labor Doctrines, Rules and Principles with Atty. Elvin’s HR Bundle Books at Discounted Rate

There are certain cases though wherein the Supreme Court did not consider as an excuse the laxity in the enforcement of rules and procedures in committing any violation:

1. The laxity in the implementation of accounting procedures does not excuse the commission of dishonest acts by employees.
2. In a case in which an employee incurred absences without permission (AWOP) but was never penalized, he cannot be absolved from further commission of AWOP on the ground that the company was lax in its implementation of the rules.
3. Employees who have committed fraud against the company cannot be absolved by the fact that the bank observed less-than-ideal controls over the security of its operations, such laxity does not serve as the carte blanche signal for the bank employees to take advantage of safeguard control lapses and perpetuate chicanery on their employer.

Can a prolonged practice of acts contrary to company policy ripen into an excusable offense? No.

In the case of Santos vs. San Miguel Corporation,  it was held that prolonged practice of encashing personal checks among payroll personnel does not excuse or justify employee’s misdeeds when the same is in gross violation of company’s policy.Willful disobedience is ground for dismissal under Article 297 of the Labor Code, as amended.

The Supreme Court found just cause to dismiss the employee for her willful disobedience of the superior’s directives requiring her to explain her absence, violation of school policy and refusal to subject herself to medical examination.

Other cases where disobedience was held willful:

1. Violation of the rule against the use of company-owned vehicles for private purposes without prior authority;
2. Smoking in restricted areas;
3. Refusal to render overtime;
4. Refusal to be transferred when such transfer is valid;

An interesting scenario is the mandatory drug testing to be done in an office environment. May an employee refuse to be tested on constitutional grounds? Can an employee invoke his right to privacy?

In the case of Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board,  the Supreme Court has this to say:

“Taking into account the foregoing factors, i.e., the reduced expectation of privacy on the part of the employees, the compelling state concern likely to be met by the search, and the well-defined limits set forth in the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random testing, we hold that the challenged drug test requirements is, under the limited context of the case, reasonable and, ergo, constitutional.”

It follows that since the Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” is not unconstitutional, the drug-testing requirement should be carried out. An employee cannot refuse his participation. Any resistance without justification to any order by the employer may fall under willful disobedience.

The disobedience attributed to the employee could not be justly characterized as willful within the contemplation of Article 297 of the Labor Code. He neither benefitted from it, nor thereby prejudiced the business interest of employer. His explanation that his deed had been intended to benefit the employer was credible. There could be no wrong or perversity on his part that warranted the termination of his employment based on willful disobedience.

One cannot follow an order that he does not know of. Hence, the basic task of employer is to make known such order to his employee.

The order or mandate of an employer may come in a form of a written policy. But if it is unwritten, will any violation be subject to disciplinary action?

In the case of Manila Broadcasting Company vs. NLRC,  the Supreme Court ruled that a policy may be lawful and reasonable but if the same is not sufficiently known to the employee, the alleged act committed by an employee allegedly in violation thereof may be considered in good faith.

How about if the policy is written but is relaxed in implementation, will any violation constitute willful dis-obedience?

Violation of a rule or policy which, in its implementation, has oftentimes been relaxed, may not lawfully give rise to termination of employment of the violator. More so when the act is with the acquiescence of the employee’s superior.

The mere fact that the numerous infractions of the employee have not been immediately subjected to sanctions cannot be interpreted as condonation of the offenses or waiver of the company to enforce company rules. A waiver is a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known legal right or privilege. It has been ruled that “a waiver to be valid and effective must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a party to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. Hence, the management prerogative to discipline employees and impose punishment is a legal right which cannot, as a general rule, be impliedly waived.

Likewise, if the employee was merely following the instructions of his superior, his act should be deemed in good faith. Clearly, his dismissal from the service on the ground of willful disobedience or violation of company rules and regulations is not justified.

There are certain cases though wherein the Supreme Court did not consider as an excuse the laxity in the enforcement of rules and procedures in committing any violation:

1. The laxity in the implementation of accounting procedures does not excuse the commission of dishonest acts by employees.
2. In a case in which an employee incurred absences without permission (AWOP) but was never penalized, he cannot be absolved from further commission of AWOP on the ground that the company was lax in its implementation of the rules.
3. Employees who have committed fraud against the company cannot be absolved by the fact that the bank observed less-than-ideal controls over the security of its operations, such laxity does not serve as the carte blanche signal for the bank employees to take advantage of safeguard control lapses and perpetuate chicanery on their employer.

Can a prolonged practice of acts contrary to company policy ripen into an excusable offense? No.

In the case of Santos vs. San Miguel Corporation,  it was held that prolonged practice of encashing personal checks among payroll personnel does not excuse or justify employee’s misdeeds when the same is in gross violation of company’s policy.