In labor cases, particularly in illegal dismissal, the employer bears the burden to prove that the employee was dismissed based on just or authorized causes and after giving due process – notice and hearing. Any doubt in the interpretation of law and appreciation of evidence will always be resolved in favor of labor.
In applying for a job, employers require the filling-out of application. In the process, the applicant must include his/her past employment. Some companies even warn applicants that any wrong information or non-disclosure of facts is a ground for dismissal and filing of criminal case for perjury [lying under oath].
Our Supreme Court uploaded on 15 September 2022 in its website the case of Celis v. Bank of Makati, Inc. [dated 15 June 2022] with GR 250776 that answered the above question. The facts are narrated as follows:
The Bank of Makati, Inc. hired Nancy Celis as an account officer for its Pasay branch on 05 July 2013 and became an administrative officer of its Legal Department on 23 May 2016.
Towards the end of 2017, HR Department received a report that she was involved in embezzlement [theft] of funds in her previous employer [Rural Bank of Places, Surigao]. As she did not disclose it in her job application, she was placed on 30-day preventive suspension and later dismissed for violating the Bank Code of Conduct and Discipline for knowingly giving false information in her application. The bank added her previous infractions as ground for dismissal like serious misconduct, fraud or willful breach of trust and loss of confidence. The bank found out that she purposely concealed her past employment with another bank to hide her implication in the embezzlement case. Thus, she filed a case for illegal dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission ruled that the bank illegally dismissed Celis because she was never found guilty of embezzlement. The only thing she did was failing to state her previous job in her application. The bank appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the LA and NLRC. It ruled that Celis was validly dismissed for her act of not disclosing her past employment is in effect giving false information. It also applied the principle of totality of infraction where her past infractions are added and used as basis for her dismissal. The bank code of conduct and discipline is a definite rule that must be obeyed by all employees. It prohibits the giving of false or misleading information in the application for employment.
The Supreme court ruled that dismissal has two aspects: justness of the cause of dismissal, known as substantive due process, and validity of the manner of dismissal, known as procedural due process. Doubts should be resolved in favor of labor in line with the constitutional policy of giving protection to labor.
To be liable for giving false or misleading information, the employee must have performed an overt or positive act – giving false information in the application. Celis did not actually state any false information in her job application, but merely omitted to reflect her past employment. There is no proof that Celis committed embezzlement. The omission to disclose her past employment in a job application does not justify her suspension and termination.
It is well-settled rule that there must a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty. The penalty must be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the violation. To dismiss Celis on account of her omission to disclose former employment is just too harsh a penalty. After working for five years, the issue of undisclosed past employment is already water under the bridge.
The CA erred in applying the principle of totality of infractions since the previous infractions and the subject offense upon which Celis was dismissed were in no way related to each other. The previous offense may be used as a valid justification for dismissal only if they are related to the subject offense upon which the dismissal is based. Meanwhile, the suspension is not valid because there is no serious threat of loss of the property of the employer. Thus, it was ruled that Celis was illegally dismissed and her employer bank is liable to pay her full backwages, separation pay and 10 percent attorney’s fee.
