Employee's dismissal for using employer's vehicle without consent
The Supreme Court has previously upheld as legal the dismissal of employees for
using the employer's vehicle for their own private purposes without prior
permission or authority. In Soco v. Mercantile Corporation of
Davao,[1] the Supreme Court held that “a rule prohibiting employees from
using company vehicles for private purposes without authority from management is
a reasonable one.” Thus, an employee who used the company vehicle twice in
pursuing his own personal interests, on company time and deviating from his
authorized route, all without permission, was held to have been validly
dismissed, for, as the Supreme Court held, to condone the employee's conduct
will erode the discipline that an employer should uniformly apply so that it can
expect compliance to the same rules and regulations by its other
employees.[2] In another case, Family Planning Organization of the
Philippines v. NLRC,[3] the Supreme Court also affirmed the dismissal of an
employee who used the company vehicle twice without permission and for personal
reasons, noting that employees must yield obedience to the rule against
unauthorized use of company vehicles because this is proper and necessary for
the conduct of the employer's business or concern.[4]
While the High
Court remains invariably committed towards social justice and the protection of
the working class from exploitation and unfair treatment, it, nevertheless,
recognizes that management also has its own rights
which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of
simple fair play.[5] The aim is always to strike a balance between an
avowed predilection for labor, on the one hand, and the maintenance of the legal
rights of capital, on the other.[6] Indeed, the Supreme Court should be
ever mindful of the legal norm that justice is in every case for the deserving,
to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and
existing jurisprudence.[7]
While the High
Court remains invariably committed towards social justice and the protection of
the working class from exploitation and unfair treatment, it, nevertheless,
recognizes that management also has its own rights
which, as such, are entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of
simple fair play.[5] The aim is always to strike a balance between an
avowed predilection for labor, on the one hand, and the maintenance of the legal
rights of capital, on the other.[6] Indeed, the Supreme Court should be
ever mindful of the legal norm that justice is in every case for the deserving,
to be dispensed with in the light of established facts, the applicable law, and
existing jurisprudence.[7]
[1] 232 Phil. 488, 495 (1987).
[2] Soco v. Mercantile Corporation of Davao, supra.
[3] G.R. No. 75907, March 23, 1992.
[4] Family Planning Organization of the Philippines v. NLRC, supra, at 421.
[5] Alcosero v. NLRC, 351 Phil. 368, 373 (1998).
[6] Homeowners Savings and Loan Association, Inc. v. NLRC, 330 Phil. 979, 985
(1996).
[7] Vigilla v. Philippine College Of Criminology Inc., G.R. No. 200094,
June 10, 2013.