463

John Hancock v Davis

564 SCRA 92 (2008)
Just Causes Analogous Cases

FACTS
Respondent was agency administration officer of petitioner John
Hancock Life Insurance Corporation. She was placed under
preventive suspension by petitioner after being being positively
identified thru a security video as the person using the corporate
affairs manager after the latters wallet was stolen. Respondent filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal alleging that petitioner terminated her
employment without cause, following the dismissal of the complaint
for qualified theft filed against her in the city prosecutors office due
to insufficiency of evidence.

The Labor Arbiter ruled that there was valid cause for her dismissal.
NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiters decision. The Court of Appeals
found that the Labor Arbiter and NLRC merely adopted the findings
of the NBI regarding the respondents culpability and therefore
reversed their decisions.

ISSUE
Whether or not the respondents dismissal was valid

RULING
Yes. Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that an employer may
terminate an employment for (a) Serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
his representatives in connection with his work; and (e) other
causes analogous to the foregoing.

In this case, petitioner dismissed respondent based on the NBI's
finding that the latter stole and used the managers credit cards. But
since the theft was not committed against petitioner itself but against
one of its employees, respondent's misconduct was not work-related
and therefore, she could not be dismissed for serious misconduct.

Nonetheless, Article 282(e) of the Labor Code talks of other
analogous causes or those which are susceptible of comparison to
another in general or in specific detail.[13] For an employee to be
validly dismissed for a cause analogous to those enumerated in
Article 282, the cause must involve a voluntary and/or willful act or
omission of the employee.

A cause analogous to serious misconduct is a voluntary and/or willful
act or omission attesting to an employee's moral depravity. Theft
committed by an employee against a person other than his
employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is a cause analogous to
serious misconduct.

The resolution of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. The
resolution of the NLRC is reinstated.


464
Yrasuegi v Philippine Air Lines
569 SCRA 467 (2008)
Just Causes Analogous Cases

FACTS
This 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.

The proper weight for a man of his height and body structure is from
147 to 166 pounds, the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as mandated
by the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of PAL. In 1984, the
petitioners weight problem started, which prompted PAL to send him
to an extended vacation until November 1985. He was allowed to
return to work once he lost all the excess weight. But the problem
recurred. He again went on leave without pay from October 17, 1988
to February 1989.

Despite the lapse of a ninety-day period given him to reach his ideal
weight, petitioner remained overweight. On January 3, 1990, he was
informed of the PAL decision for him to remain grounded until such
time that he satisfactorily complies with the weight standards. Again,
he was directed to report every two weeks for weight checks, which
he failed to comply with.

On April 17, 1990, petitioner was formally warned that a repeated
refusal to report for weight check would be dealt with accordingly. He
was given another set of weight check dates, which he did not report
to.
On November 13, 1992, PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of
Administrative Charge for violation of company standards on weight
requirements. Petitioner insists that he is being discriminated as
those similarly situated were not treated the same.

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.

The Labor Arbiter held that the weight standards of PAL are
reasonable in view of the nature of the job of petitioner. However, the
weight standards need not be complied with under pain of dismissal
since his weight did not hamper the performance of his duties. NLRC
affirmed. The Court of Appeals ruled that the weight standards of
PAL are reasonable. Thus, petitioner was legally dismissed because
he repeatedly failed to meet the prescribed weight standards. It is
obvious that the issue of discrimination was only invoked by
petitioner for purposes of escaping the result of his dismissal for
being overweight.

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner was validly dismissed

RULING
YES. 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. The dismissal of the employee
would thus fall under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code on analogous
cases.

In the case at bar, the evidence on record militates against
petitioners claims that obesity is a disease. That he was able to
reduce his weight from 1984 to 1992 clearly shows that it is possible
for him to lose weight given the proper attitude, determination, and
self-discipline. Indeed, during the clarificatory hearing on December
8, 1992, petitioner himself claimed that [t]he issue is could I bring
my weight down to ideal weight which is 172, then the answer is yes.
I can do it now.

Petitioner has only himself to blame. He could have easily availed
the assistance of the company physician, per the advice of PAL.

The Court held that the obesity of petitioner, when placed in the
context of his work as flight attendant, becomes an analogous cause
under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code that justifies his dismissal
from the service. His obesity may not be unintended, but is
nonetheless voluntary. As the CA correctly puts it, voluntariness
basically means that the just cause is solely attributable to the
employee without any external force influencing or controlling his
actions. This element runs through all just causes under Article 282,
whether they be in the nature of a wrongful action or omission. Gross
and habitual neglect, a recognized just cause, is considered
voluntary although it lacks the element of intent found in Article
282(a), (c), and (d).


465
Alabang Country Club v NLRC
545 SCRA 351 (2008)
Just Causes Analogous Cases

FACTS
Petitioner is a domestic non-profit corporation and respondent union
is the exclusive bargaining agent of the Clubs rank-and-file
employees. Private respondents Pizarro, Barza and Castueras, were
elected Union President, Vice-President and Treasurer, respectively.
In 1999, the Club and the Union entered into a Collective Bargaining
Agreement which provided for a Union shop and maintenance of
membership shop. Section 5 of the CBA provides that Upon written
demand of the Union and after observing due process, the Club shall
dismiss a regular rank-and-file employee on the ground of failure to
join, or resignation from, the Union; conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude; and malversation of union funds, among others.

After elections for a new set of officers, an audit was conducted on
the Union funds. Unrecorded entries, unaccounted expenses and
disbursements, and uncollected loans from the Union funds were
discovered. The Union notified respondents Pizarro, Barza and
Castueras of the audit results and were asked to explained the
discrepancies therein. Despite their explanations, they were expelled
from the Union.

Subsequently, the Union, invoking the Security Clause of the CBA,
demanded that the Club dismiss the respondents in view of their
expulsion from the Union. The Club required the respondents to
show cause why they should not be dismissed. The Clubs General
Manager called them for an informal conference inquiring about the
charges against them. Claiming that such are baseless, the general
manager announced that he would conduct a formal investigation.

After weighing the verbal and written explanations of the
respondents, the Club concluded that said respondents failed to
refute the validity of their expulsion from the Union. Thus, it was
constrained to terminate the employment of said respondents.
Respondents filed a complaint of illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter ruled
in favor of the club. NLRC declared the dismissal illegal. The Court of
Appeals upheld the NLRC ruling that the respondents were deprived
due process.

ISSUE
Whether the respondents were illegally dismissed

RULING
Under the Labor Code, an employee may be validly terminated on
the grounds under Articles 282-285. Another cause for termination is
dismissal from employment due to the enforcement of the union
security clause in the CBA. There is union shop when all new regular
employees are required to join the union within a certain period as a
condition for their continued employment. There is maintenance of
membership shop when employees who are union members as of
the effective date of the agreement, or who thereafter become
members, must maintain union membership as a condition for
continued employment until they are promoted or transferred out of
the bargaining unit or the agreement is terminated. Termination of
employment by virtue of a union security clause embodied in a CBA
is recognized and accepted in our jurisdiction.

In terminating the employment of an employee by enforcing the
union security clause, the employer needs only to determine and
prove that: (1) the union security clause is applicable; (2) the union is
requesting for the enforcement of the union security provision in the
CBA; and (3) there is sufficient evidence to support the union's
decision to expel the employee from the union. These requisites
constitute just cause for terminating an employee based on the
CBA's union security provision.

In this case, the requisites were satisfied; the three respondents
were expelled from and by the Union after due investigation for acts
of dishonesty and malversation of Union funds. In accordance with
the CBA, the Union properly requested the Club to enforce the Union
security provision in their CBA and terminate said respondents.
Then, in compliance with the Union's request, the Club reviewed the
documents submitted by the Union, requested said respondents to
submit written explanations, and thereafter afforded them reasonable
opportunity to present their side. After it had determined that there
was sufficient evidence that said respondents malversed Union
funds, the Club dismissed them from their employment conformably
with Sec. 4(f) of the CBA.