Photo from Pexels | Kampus Production
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:
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. However, while the rule permits employers to consider an employee’s history of violations, jurisprudence also sets limits on how past offenses may justify dismissal. Previous offenses may be used as valid justification for dismissal only if they are related to the subsequent offense upon which the basis of termination is decreed, or if they have a bearing on the proximate offense warranting dismissal.
In Sy v. Neat, Inc., G.R. No. 213748, November 27, 2017, the Supreme Court held that 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 Supreme Court reiterated the Rule in the case of University of the Cordilleras v. Lacanaria, G.R. No. 223665, September 27, 2021, stating that 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 the employee 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.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court underscored in the said cases that while it may be true that the employee was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped 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 the employee, he continued to commit misconduct and exhibit undesirable behavior. 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, while the rule permits employers to consider an employee’s history of violations, jurisprudence also sets limits on how past offenses may justify dismissal.
In Celis v. Bank of Makati (A Savings Bank), Inc., G.R. No. 250776, June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court clarified that previous offenses may be used as valid justification for dismissal only if they are related to the subsequent offense upon which the basis of termination is decreed, or if they have a bearing on the proximate offense warranting dismissal.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.