One of the valid grounds for terminating employment is willful disobedience. What constitutes willful disobedience? This is answered in the case of Pancho.
Pancho was employed as a daily wage company guard of a food and beverage conglomerate (SMC) on October 24, 1980. By 1984 he already became a monthly paid employee assigned at a warehouse of SMC in the Visayas entitled to yearly salary increases.
Thinking that his yearly salary increases were only a percentage of what the other security guards were receiving, Pancho filed an action for damages due to discrimination under Article 100 of the Labor Code and for recovery of salary differential and back-wages against SMC, his security commander Capt. Cortes and the company director, on October 19, 1993.
On December 6, 1993, the company vice president for Visayas Mindanao operations issued a memorandum integrating the functions of the Materials Management and Physical Distribution groups of the brewery operations into a unified logistics organization, the VisMin Logistics Operations (VLO) effective January 1, 1994. Thus the warehouse where Pancho worked was transferred to this new group.
On February 7, 1994, in compliance with this memo, Capt. Cortes transferred the responsibility of the security personnel and equipment in the warehouse to the security officer of VLO, Major Flores. At the same time Capt. Cortes told his supervising security guards to inform the company guards of the transfer.
On February 9, 1994, Major Flores, Pancho’s new superior issued a guard detail for February 14-20, 1994. All the guards signed the detail except Pancho who refused to sign. On February 15, 1994, Maj. Flores issued another guard detail for Feb. 21-27, 1994. Again all the security guards signed except Pancho. Thereafter 14 successive memoranda were issued to Pancho officially informing him of the transfer to VLO but Pancho refused to sign. He continued to report at the warehouse and claimed he was wary of the transfer because of his pending case against SMC.
Thus on February 28, 1994, SMC informed Pancho that an administrative investigation would be conducted relative to his alleged offenses of insubordination or willful disobedience in carrying out reasonable instructions of his superiors. During the investigation he was given the opportunity to present his evidence and be assisted by counsel. Then on April 7, 1994, SMC informed Pancho of its decision to terminate him for insubordination or willful disobedience. Was SMC correct?
Yes. Willful disobedience requires the concurrence of two elements: (1) willful conduct characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonably lawful, made known to the employee, and must pertain to the duties which he has been engaged to discharge.
The employer exercises the prerogative to transfer an employee for valid reasons and according to the requirements of its business, provided the transfer does not result in demotion in rank and diminution of the employee’s salary, benefits and other privileges.
In this case the order of transfer was reasonable and lawful considering the integration of the warehouse with the VLO. Pancho was not singled out for transfer. It was the effect of the integration of the company functions into a unified organization including the unit to which Pancho belonged. He was properly informed of the transfer but he refused to receive the notices on the pretext that he was wary because of the pending case he filed against SMC. But he failed to prove that SMC acted in bad faith in effecting the transfer. There was no demotion involved, or even a diminution of his salary, benefits and other privileges. Pancho’s refusal to obey SMC’s lawful order therefore amounts to willful disobedience under Article 282 of the Labor Code (San Miguel Corporation vs. Pontillas, G.R. 155178, May 7, 2008).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445. –Jose C. Sison, Philippine Star
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net
Invoke Article 33 of the ILO constitution
against the military junta in Myanmar
to carry out the 2021 ILO Commission of Inquiry recommendations
against serious violations of Forced Labour and Freedom of Association protocols.
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos