EMPLOYEE'S ATTITUDE PROBLEM AS GROUND TO TERMINATE EMPLOYMENT - 09 PJP 21 (2024)
- RECOMMENDED CITATION: Mark Angelo S. Dela Peña (2024), Employee with Attitude Problem May Be Fired from Work, 09 PJP 21, available at <insert link> (last accessed on <date>).
- LAST REVISION: September 21, 2024 at 7:30 AM.
Just causes, or those reasons attributable to the employee, include: (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and (e) other causes analogous to the foregoing.[2] Notice that there is a catch-all phrase, saying “other causes analogous to the foregoing.” Hence, the list above from (a) to (d) is not exclusive.
It must be underlined that "just causes" are different from "authorized causes."
For example, employees who cannot get along with their co-employees or coworkers are detrimental to the organizational setup because they can upset and strain the working environment. The Supreme Court has had a chance to point out that, without the necessary teamwork and synergy, the organization cannot function well. Thus, management has the prerogative to take the necessary action to correct the situation and protect its organization.[3]
Personal differences between employees and management, brought about by such personality or attitude problems, can undeniably affect the work environment and disrupt the peace of the company. Thus, an employee’s attitude problem is a valid ground for termination from work. It can be considered a situation analogous to loss of trust and confidence that must be duly proved by the employer. Similarly, compliance with the twin requirement of notice and hearing must also be proven by the employer.[4]
It must be emphasized, however, that the supposed “attitude problem” of the employee must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. The mere mention of negative feedback from the employee’s team members is not sufficient proof of her attitude problem. Also, the employee’s failure to refute the employer’s allegation of negative attitude should not amount to an admission.[5] Thus, the rule remains that, for an employee to be validly dismissed for a cause analogous to those enumerated in the LCP, the cause must involve a voluntary and/or willful act or omission of the employee. For example, theft committed by an employee against a person other than the employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is a cause analogous to serious misconduct, attesting to the former’s moral depravity.[6]
In other words, although “attitude problem” is not one of those specifically enumerated under the LCP as one of the grounds for the valid dismissal of an employee from service, the Supreme Court considered it included in the term “analogous causes” because, if such behavior already adversely affects the working environment, the employer is justified in viewing such problem as a serious misconduct. However, it must be recalled that allegations of an employee’s attitude problem should be substantiated with sufficient proof. In labor law, generally, the proof required is substantial. Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. However, notice that the Supreme Court, in the Heavylift Manila case, said that it should be clear and convincing evidence, which is more than preponderance of evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Note that substantial evidence is higher than mere probable cause but lower than preponderance of evidence.
Another interesting case is that of Sy v. Neat.[7]
The employee’s insubordination, as found by the Supreme Court, of changing his delivery utility without permission from the operations manager was no doubt a misconduct but not a serious and willful one as to cost him his livelihood. His act of unilaterally assigning to himself another delivery utility, in lieu of the one designated to him, reflected his attitude problem and disregard of a lawful order issued by a representative of the employer. Be that as it may, the Court held that such willful disobedience could not be deemed to depict a wrongful attitude as it was prompted by his desire to carry out his duty without distractions. In other words, the alleged misconduct must be serious and willful in nature, not merely one that is impelled by a desire to carry out employment duties.
[1] DE JESUS v. AQUINO, 704 Phil. 77, G.R. No. 164662, February 18, 2013 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
[2] LABOR CODE, Art. 297 [Renumbered].
[3] HEAVYLIFT MANILA v. COURT OF APPEALS, 510 Phil. 315, G.R. No. 154410, October 20, 2005 [Per J. Quisumbing, First Division].
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE v. DAVIS 586 Phil. 83, G.R. No. 169549, September 03, 2008 [Per J. Corona, First Division].
[7] 821 Phil. 751, G.R. No. 213748, November 27, 2017 [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].