TOPIC / TITLE FACTS ISSUE RULING DOCTRINE

SUBJECT
MATTER
Preventive SAMUEL MAMARIL Samuel Mamaril was charged for Whether NO. Mamaril’s initial suspension was a Significantly, preventive
Suspension having committed several infractions or not preventive suspension that was suspension is a
vs. for which an administrative Red necessary to protect Red System’s measure allowed by law
investigation was conducted. System equipment and personnel. and afforded to the
THE RED SYSTEM was employer if an
COMPANY, INC., During the pendency of the guilty of In fact, the employer's right to place an employee's continued
DANILO administrative hearing, respondent, imposing employee under preventive suspension employment poses a
PADRIGON, Red System, placed him under a double is recognized by the Omnibus Rules serious and imminent
AGNES preventive suspension for a period of penalty Implementing the Labor Code, which threat to the employer's
TUNPALAN, one month. against states: life or property or of his
ALEJANDRO Mamaril The employer may place the worker co-workers."
ALVAREZ, After the completion of the concerned under preventive An employee may be
JODERICK administrative investigation, Red suspension if his continued placed under preventive
LOZANO, ENRIQUE System found Mamaril guilty of employment poses a serious and suspension during the
ROMMEL violating the company code of conduct. imminent threat to the life or property of pendency of an
MIRAFLORES, Thus, he was dismissed from the the employer or of his co-workers. investigation against
DOMINGO RIVERO service for willful disobedience and him.
willful breach of trust as provided under In the case at bar, Mamaril was placed
G.R. No. 229920 Article 297 of the Labor Code. under preventive suspension
July 04, 2018 considering that during the pendency of
Aggrieved, Mamaril filed a complaint the administrative hearings, he was
against Red System for illegal noticed to have several near-accident
dismissal with damages and attorney’s misses and he had exhibited a lack of
fees. He contended that he was meted concern for his work.
with a “double penalty” for having been
suspended and thereafter terminated His inattentiveness posed a serious
from employment. threat to the safety of the company
equipment and personnel. This is
especially true considering that he was
driving trucks loaded with fragile
products. 

Serious LEO T. MAULA Leo T. Maula and some co-employees Whether NO. Respondent manifestly failed to Misconduct is improper
Misconduct; were required by respondent Ximex or not prove that petitioner’s alleged act or wrong conduct; it is
Totality of vs. Delivery Express Inc. to sign a form Maula’s constitutes serious misconduct. the transgression of
Infractions sub-titled “Personal Data for New inflammat some established and
Rule XIMEX DELIVERY Hires”. ory The admittedly insulting and definite rule of action, a
EXPRESS, INC. language unbecoming language uttered by forbidden act, a
They questioned the document and constitute petitioner to the HR Manager on April 3, dereliction of duty, willful
G.R. No. 207838, aired their apprehension against the s serious 2009 should be viewed with reasonable in character, and implies
January 25, 2017 designation. Feeling ignored, petitioner miscondu leniency in light of the fact that it was wrongful intent and not
filed a complaint against the ct which committed under an emotionally mere error in judgment.
respondent before the National warrants charged state. The misconduct, to be
Conciliation and Mediation Board, his serious within the
which was later forwarded to the dismissal The Court agrees with the labor arbiter meaning of the Labor
National Labor Relations Commission and the NLRC that the on-the-spur-of- Code, must be of such a
(NLRC). the-moment outburst of petitioner, he grave and aggravated
having reached his breaking point, was character and not
Subsequently, petitioner was due to what he perceived as merely trivial or
addressed with several memoranda successive retaliatory and orchestrated unimportant. Thus, for
requiring him to explain of alleged actions of respondent. Indeed, there misconduct or improper
series of infractions he committed. The was only lapse in judgment rather than behavior to be a just
last memorandum was issued by the a premeditated defiance of authority. cause for dismissal, (a)
HR manager requiring him to explain it must be serious; (b) it
why he did not perform his former work The Court held that respondent cannot must relate to the
and not report to his assignment. He invoke the principle of totality of performance of the
refused to receive the memorandum infractions considering that petitioner’s employee’s duties; and
and retorted “Seguro na abnormal na alleged previous acts of misconduct (c) it must show that the
ang utak mo”. were not established in accordance employee has become
with the requirements of procedural due unfit to continue working
The Court of Appeals (CA) found that process. In fact, respondent conceded for the employer.
petitioner’s behavior constitutes that he “was not even censured for any
serious misconduct which was a grave infraction in the past.” The totality of infractions
and aggravated character. He was not or the number of
only being disrespectful, he also violations committed
manifested willful defiance of authority during the period
and insubordination. of employment shall be
considered in
determining the penalty
to be imposed
upon an erring
employee. Having been
penalized for his
previous infractions,
this does not and should
not mean that his
employment record
would be
wiped clean of his
infractions.