You can fire your workers due to use of drugs

The Supreme Court said yes, management can legally dismiss employees for use of prohibited drugs even if the act of using was done outside but the employee tested positive inside, both in the initial random testing and the second test for confirmatory verification. As long as the testing center is accredited by the Department of Health and the process of testing and handling of specimens are all in order.

The highest court of the land decided the case of Pat C. Samson and Paul Philip M. Buena vs. Central Azucarera de Bais (GR 243855) on November 25, 2020. The two former employees of the sugar central lost their appeals in the Court of Appeals and thus they elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. Following the decision of the High Court itself in the earlier case of Nacague vs. Sulpicio Lines, INC (641 Phil 377,386, 2010) the Court's Second Division which handled the case, took note that management here carefully followed the procedural protocols outlined by the Department of Labor and Employment in its Department Order 50-03 in relation to Section 36 of the Comprehensive Anti-Drugs Law or Republic Act 9165. This is definitely good news to all employers and quite bad news to drug users, distributors, and drug lords.

The Supreme Court cited the landmark decision in the case of Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board (GR 157870, GR 158633, and 161658, November 3, 2008) decided by all the 15 justices of the Supreme Court en banc. In these cases, my fellow University of Santo Tomas Law professor, the late Atty. Samson Alcantara, head of the Social Justice Society, as well as another professor Atty. Manuel Laserna, and former senator Nene Pimentel filed three separate cases before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the compulsory drug testing for students and employees. They all lost their petitions. The highest court upheld the validity of the law and declared that there is no undue violation of the right against self-incrimination.

Therefore, employers should be reassured that it is perfectly legal to conduct a compulsory drug test. There was even another decision saying that an employee who refuses to submit to such a test is guilty of insubordination which is willful disobedience to a lawful order in relation to work. In another case, the Union of Nestle Workers in Cagayan de Oro vs. Nestle Philippines and HR Manager Francis Lacson (GR148303, October 17, 2002), the highest court upheld the prerogative of management to conduct these drug tests. Therefore, employees and unions have no right to object to random drug testing considering that these are valid exercise of management prerogatives. Employers cannot be deprived of these prerogatives arising from property rights, without due process of law.

The importance of management prerogatives in setting up policies against drugs was stressed by the Supreme Court in the Nestle case, citing SMC vs. NLRC (255 SCRA 153, 1996), that: "Company personnel policies are guiding principles stated in broad, long-range terms that express the philosophy or beliefs of an organization's top authority regarding personnel matters. They deal with matters affecting efficiency and well-being of employees, among others, the procedures in the administration of wages, benefits, promotions, transfers and other personnel movements x x x.” These necessarily include employee discipline, of course, as we may hasten to add. Therefore, the Regional Trial Courts have no business interfering with the implementation of the company personnel policies on drug testing.

Therefore, the bottom line is pure and simple. Employers have the inherent prerogatives and rights to lay down policies on, among others, discipline and dismissal of employees due to use of prohibited drugs. Human rights lawyers, courts and other persons have no business putting obstacles to the legitimate exercise of these prerogatives. Companies have the inherent right to protect themselves from grave and imminent dangers to lives and properties brought about by drug users inside company premises. That is the long and short of it. No more and no less.