The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the failure of an employee to disclose the full records of his or her previous employments in a job application cannot be a cause for his or her dismissal from the service.
With the ruling, the SC granted the petition of Nancy Claire Pit Celis, who, after five years of employment with the Bank of Makati (A Savings Bank), Inc. was dismissed by the bank for her failure to disclose her previous employment with the Rural Bank of Placer (Bank of Placer) in Surigao del Norte.
The SC decision, written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and made public last Sept. 19, reversed the June 7, 2019 ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which set aside the ruling of the labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the illegality of Celis’ dismissal.
A summary of the decision issued by the SC’s public information office (PIO) stated that Celis was hired on July 15, 2013 as an account officer of Bank of Makati’s Pasay City Branch. On May 23, 2016, the bank assigned her to its Legal and External Agency Department as an administrative officer.
In late 2017, the Bank of Makati’s Human Resource Department received a report that Celis was previously employed with the Bank of Placer and was involved in a case concerning embezzlement of funds. Celis did not include the information in her job application with Bank of Makati.
After investigation and hearing, Celis was dismissed for violating the Bank of Makati’s Code of Conduct and Discipline in “knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment as a result of which employment is secured.”
Celis was dismissed also on the ground of “serious misconduct, fraud, or willful breach of trust and loss of confidence.”
She filed a case for illegal dismissal against the Bank of Makati. She pointed out that the omission of her past employment with the Bank of Placer was done in good faith and that the Bank of Makati failed to prove her involvement in the embezzlement case.
The labor arbiter ruled in favor of Celis and declared that her failure to state her past employment was not a serious offense that would justify suspension and termination.
The arbiter noted that Celis was never administratively found guilty of the supposed charge of embezzlement and the Rural Bank of Placer allowed her to resign without any derogatory record.
The arbiter’s ruling was upheld by the NLRC prompting the Bank of Makati to elevate the case to the CA which reversed the labor relations commission.
Reversing the CA, the SC stressed the constitutional policy that whenever there are doubts in the interpretation of labor legislation and contracts, the doubts should be resolved in favor of labor.
The SC said that 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 of violating the Bank’s Code of Conduct for concealing her previous employment.
It said: “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 petitioner’s suspension and eventual termination from employment.... The penalty must be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. To dismiss petitioner (Celis) on account of her omission to disclose former employment is just too harsh a penalty.”
It also said that Celis had been working for the Bank of Makati for almost five years when it raised, out of the blue, the issue regarding her undisclosed past employment.
“To the Court, such matter is already water under the bridge. Likewise, 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.
The SC disagreed on the CA’s reliance on the Principle of Totality of Infractions in reversing the NLRC. Under the Principle of Totality of Infractions, 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, it said.
It pointed out that even assuming that Celis’ act of omission did constitute an offense, her two previous infractions -- improper conduct and acts of gross discourtesy or disrespect to follow employees, and personal borrowing from the bank’s clients -- are not related to the offense that became the basis for her termination. “Hence, the Principle of Totality of Infractions does not apply,” it said.
But the SC deemed it best to award Celis separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to the resultant strained relations between her and the Bank of Makati.
The SC ruled:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 7, 2019 and the Resolution dated December 6, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 158988 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
“The Decision dated July 13, 2018 and the Resolution dated October 26, 2018 of the National Labor Relations Commission in NLRC LAC No. 06-002270-18/NLRC Case No. NCR-02-02488-18 are hereby REINSTATED with MODIFICATION in that the total monetary award in favor of petitioner Nancy Claire Pit Celis shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until full satisfaction.
“The case is hereby REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the proper computation of the monetary awards. SO ORDERED.”