- Have any questions?
- (02) 8579-9170
TOTALITY OF INFRACTIONS PRINCIPLE REQUIRES OFFENSES TO BE RELATED
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 Celis 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.
However, in the case of Celis vs. Bank of Makati (A Savings Bank), Inc., [G.R. No. 250776, June 15, 2022] the Supreme Court (SC) held that where the infractions are not being related or similar in nature to the present charge, it cannot be said that the dismissal from employment was for a just cause.
Below is the digest of Celis case.
Principle of Totality of Infractions cannot be used against the employee because his transgression for wearing an improper uniform was not related to his latest infractions of insubordination and purported poor performance evaluation; 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; The correct rule is that previous infractions may be used as justification for an employee’s dismissal from work in connection with a subsequent similar offense; Doubts should be resolved in favor of labor; In line with the Constitutional policy of giving protection to labor, the Civil Code and the Labor Code provide that doubts in the interpretation of labor legislation and contracts shall be construed in favor of labor; Likewise, the Court has consistently held that doubts in the appreciation of evidence in labor cases shall work to the advantage of labor
Facts:
On July 15, 2013, Bank of Makati (A Savings Bank), Inc. (bank) hired Celis as an Account Officer for its Pasay City Branch. On May 23, 2016, the bank assigned her to the Legal and External Agency Department as an Administrative Officer.
Towards the end of 2017, the bank’s Human Resource Department received a report that Celis was previously employed in the Rural Bank of Placer (Bank of Placer), Surigao del Norte, and was involved in a case concerning embezzlement of funds. However, Celis did not disclose her past employment with the Bank of Placer in her job application with the bank.
Acting on the information, the bank issued a Notice of Explanation to Celis and thereafter, placed her under preventive suspension for 30 days.
Celis submitted a Written Explanation wherein she admitted that she indeed failed to disclose her past employment with the Bank of Placer but attributed such omission to her excitement in filling up her job application with the bank. She denied being involved in an embezzlement case and explained that the matter was mere hearsay and gossip. Thereafter, the bank conducted a conference/hearing where Celis personally explained her side.
However, the company resolved to terminate the employment of Celis on the following grounds: (1) violation of the Bank’s Code of Conduct and Discipline (the bank’s Code of Conduct) for knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment as a result of which employment is secured” (subject infraction); and (2) Serious Misconduct, Fraud or Willful Breach of Trust and Loss of Confidence under Article 297 [282] of the Labor Code.
The bank found out that Celis purposely concealed her past employment with the Bank of Placer to hide her implication in a certain embezzlement case. In meting out the penalty of dismissal, the bank likewise considered the infractions of Celis in 2016 and the corresponding disciplinary actions imposed on her, viz.: (1) suspension from work for 10 days for her “improper conduct and acts of gross discourtesy or disrespect to fellow employees;”21 and (2) suspension from work for 15 days for her infraction of “personal borrowing from the Bank’s Clients.”
Consequently, Celis filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, monetary claims, and damages against the bank. She alleged that her dismissal from employment was only precipitated by her discovery of the corrupt practices in which her division head and her department head were involved. Celis maintained that her failure to disclose her past employment with the Bank of Placer was done in good faith, and the bank failed to prove her involvement in the embezzlement case.
Acquire Mastery of HR/Labor Doctrines, Rules and Principles with Atty. Elvin’s HR Bundle Books at Discounted Rate
LA Ruling:
The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of Celis and held that the bank illegally dismissed her from employment
Aggrieved, the bank partially appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
NLRC Ruling:
The NLRC dismissed the appeal of the bank and agreed with the LA that the bank illegally dismissed Celis from employment.
The NLRC ratiocinated that Celis could not have committed the offense of knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment as a result of which employment is secured as Celis only withheld information from the bank in her job application, an act not covered by the subject infraction.
Aggrieved, the bank filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC ruling, but the NLRC denied it.
CA Ruling:
The Court of Appeals (CA) found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC and held that the bank validly dismissed Celis from employment.
Aggrieved, Celis filed a motion for reconsideration of the CA Decision, but the CA denied it . Thus, the petition before the SC.
Issue/s:
Whether or not the employee can be dismissed for failure to disclose previous employment information
Whether or not totality of infractions principle applies to unrelated offenses
Whether or not doubts exist if the company policy does not expressly prohibit and penalize non-disclosure of prior employment information
SC Ruling:
The SC ruled in favor of the employee.
Dismissal from employment has two aspects: (1) the justness of the cause of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and (2) the validity of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process. As Celis does not dispute the procedural aspect of her termination from employment, the Court shall proceed to resolve the issue of whether the bank justifiably dismissed her from employment.
In line with the Constitutional policy of giving protection to labor, the Civil Code48 and the Labor Code provide that doubts in the interpretation of labor legislation and contracts shall be construed in favor of labor. Likewise, the Court has consistently held that doubts in the appreciation of evidence in labor cases shall work to the advantage of labor.
In the case, the bank dismissed Celis from employment as she allegedly violated its Code of Conduct for the subject infraction. According to the bank, Celis did not state in her job application that she was once employed with the Bank of Placer to conceal her implication in the embezzlement case thereat. The bank further explained that it could not have hired Celis had it known about her involvement in such case.
The CA agreed with the bank that the subject infraction applies against Celis because in not disclosing her past employment with the Bank of Placer, she, in effect, gave the bank false information that she never worked thereat. On the other hand, the labor tribunals were one in holding that Celis could not have committed the subject infraction as she only withheld information in her job application with the bank, an act not covered by the latter’s Code of Conduct.
Being faced with different interpretations of the subject provision, the Court adopts the construction which favors Celis in view of the Constitutional policy of giving protection to labor and resolving doubtful labor provisions or contracts in favor of workers.
To be liable under the subject infraction, i.e., “knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment as a result of which employment is secured,” the employee must have performed an overt or positive act, i.e., giving false information in the application for employment. Considering that Celis did not actually state any false information in her job application but merely omitted to reflect her past employment with the Bank of Placer, she could not have committed the alleged infraction.
At any rate, the SC held that it is of no moment that Celis had omitted to reflect her past employment with the Bank of Placer or was allegedly implicated in the purported embezzlement case thereat. Significantly, the Bank of Placer neither found Celis liable nor meted out any disciplinary action against her in the case. In fact, the record is bereft of any information about the incidents of Celis’ implication in the embezzlement case.
For the SC, what the record actually shows is that the Bank of Placer allowed Celis to gracefully exit from the company without any derogatory record. From the foregoing, the SC ruled that the labor tribunals aptly held that this is merely a case of an omission to disclose former employment in a job application, a fault which does not justify Celis’s suspension and eventual termination from employment.
It is well settled that “there must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty. The penalty must be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.” To dismiss Celis on account of her omission to disclose former employment is just too harsh a penalty.
The bank now posits that it could not have hired Celis had it known that she was once implicated in an embezzlement case. Notably, Celis had been working with the bank for almost five years already when it raised, out of the blue, the issue regarding her undisclosed past employment.
To the SC, such matter is already water under the bridge. Likewise, the fact that the bank suddenly created an issue about Celis’ undisclosed past employment lends credence to her allegation that the charge against her was only precipitated by her discovery of the corrupt practices involving her division head and her department head.
At any rate, the reason of the bank for terminating Celis’ employment is without just cause. Notably, however, the CA also justified the dismissal of Celis from employment by applying the Principle of Totality of Infractions. Jurisprudence is settled that in determining the sanction imposable to an employee, the employer may consider and weigh her other past infractions or the so-called totality of infractions rule.
Previous offenses may be used to aggravate a subsequent infraction to justify an employee’s dismissal only if they are related to the subsequent offense upon which termination is decreed.
In 2016, the bank previously found Celis liable for the following infractions: (1) improper conduct and acts of gross discourtesy or disrespect to fellow employees; and (2) personal borrowing from the bank’s clients. On account of these infractions, the bank placed Celis under a 10-day and 15-day suspension, respectively. 68 While Celis had committed two previous offenses, the Principle of Totality of Infractions cannot be utilized against her as she committed no subsequent violation of the bank’s Code of Conduct. As earlier discussed, Celis did not commit the subject infraction. Simply put, there is no subsequent offense which Celis’s previous infractions could aggravate.
But even assuming that Celis had committed the subject infraction, the CA still erred in applying the Principle of Totality of Infractions considering that Celis’s previous infractions and the subject offense upon which her termination was decreed were in no way related to each other.
Instructive on this matter is the case of Sy v. Neat, Inc., wherein the Court ruled that the Principle of Totality of Infractions cannot be used against the employee because his transgression for wearing an improper uniform was not related to his latest infractions of insubordination and purported poor performance evaluation. “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.
Also relevant at bar is the case of De Guzman v. NLRC, wherein the Court ruled that the Principle of Totality of Infractions applies when prior infractions are similar to the subsequent offense.
In the case, the first offense of Celis, i.e., discourtesy or disrespect to fellow employees, was an offense concerning improper behavior towards co-workers. On the other hand, Celis’ second offense, i.e., personal borrowing from the bank’s clients, was a transgression relating to conflict of interest. The subject infraction differs from the aforementioned offenses in that, the subject infraction concerns dishonesty.
Celis’ infractions not being related or similar in nature to the present charge, the CA erred in applying the Principle of Totality of Infractions against her. Indubitably, the bank failed to substantially prove that Celis’ dismissal from employment was for a just cause. All told, there is substantial evidence to support the finding of the NLRC that the bank illegally dismissed Celis from employment.
Thus, for the SC, the CA erred in imputing grave abuse of discretion against the NLRC. The Court agrees with the labor tribunals that Celis was indeed illegally terminated from her job.
Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin 
Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:
Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:
Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing