MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the omission of a past employment is not just cause to terminate an employee.
In an 18-page decision promulgated on June 15 but published on Monday, the SC’s Third Division granted the petition of Nancy Claire Pit Celis to reverse and set aside two 2019 Court of Appeals (CA) rulings against her.
The CA’s ruling reversed two decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in 2018 in Celis’ favor and held that her employer, the Bank of Makati, validly dismissed her for not disclosing her past employer.
Celis was hired in July 2013 as an account officer of the Bank of Makati and was assigned to its legal and external agency department as an administrative officer in May 2016.
Almost a year in that department, the Bank of Makati’s human resource department reported that Celis did not disclose when she applied with the bank that she was previously employed by the Rural Bank of Placer in Surigao del Norte and was reportedly involved in an embezzlement case that led to her dismissal.
The Bank of Makati alleged that Celis violated its code of conduct and discipline “for knowingly giving false or misleading information in application for employment” and terminated her for “serious misconduct, fraud or willful breach of trust and loss of confidence” under the Labor Code.
Celis filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, monetary claims and damages against the Bank of Makati as she maintained that the omission of her past employment was done in good faith and that her latest employer failed to prove her involvement in the embezzlement case.
The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Celis, saying that she was illegally dismissed as it held that her failure to disclose her past employment was not a serious offense that would justify suspension and termination.
The labor arbiter also said that Celis was never administratively found guilty of the embezzlement by her past employer.
The arbiter’s ruling was upheld by the NLRC but was subsequently overturned by the CA.
In deciding the case, the SC said “the penalty must be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. To dismiss the petition on account of her omission to disclose former employment is just too harsh a penalty.”
The SC also questioned the apparent timing of the case as Celis had already been working for the Bank of Makati for almost five years when the issue emerged.
“The fact that the Bank of Makati 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,” it said.
Instead of reinstating Celis, the SC said that it is best to award her separation pay “due to the resultant strained relations between her and the Bank of Makati” as it modified the monetary award to her with an imposition of a legal interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of finality of the decision until full satisfaction.
The case was referred to the labor arbiter for the proper computation of the monetary awards.