Moreno v.

San Sebastian College- Recoletos (2008)

Petitioners: Jackqui Moreno
Respondents: San Sebastian College- Recoletos
DOCTRINE:
Under Art. 282(a) of the Labor Code, willful disobedience of the
employers lawful orders as a just cause for termination of employment
envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employees
assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness
being characterized by a "wrongful and perverse attitude"; and (2) the
order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employee and must pertain to the duties which he has been engaged to
discharge
Misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the
transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a
forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies
wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be
serious within the meaning of the act must be of such a grave and
aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such
misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with
the work of the employee to constitute just cause from his separation.
In order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant the
dismissal of an employee under paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the
Labor Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained of
has violated some established rules or policies. It is equally important
and required that the act or conduct must have been performed with
wrongful intent. (NLRC v Salgarino)
FACTS:
1. San Sebastian College- Recolletos (SSC-R) is a domestic corporation
and an educational institution duly registered under the laws of the
Philippines, located in C. M. Recto Avenue, Quiapo, Manila.
2. SSC-R employed petitioner Jackqui R. Moreno
a. 1999 as a teaching fellow.
b. 2000 appointed as a full-time college faculty member.
c. 2001 member of the permanent college faculty
d. 2002 offered the chairmanship of the Business Finance and
Accountancy Department of her college.
3. Because of reports and rumors of Morenos unauthorized external
teaching engagements, HR Department of the school conducted a formal
investigation on the said activities.

4. Dept Report: Moreno had unauthorized teaching assignments at the

Centro Escolar University, College of the Holy Spirit.
5. Memo from Dean asking Moreno to explain her unauthorized teaching
engagements.
a. said activities allegedly violated Section 2.2 of Article II of SSC-Rs
Faculty Manual, which provides that administrative permission is
required for all full-time faculty members to teach part-time
elsewhere.
6. Moreno defense: teaching engagements were merely transitory in nature
as the schools urgently needed lecturers; that she was no longer
connected with them; that she merely wanted to improve her familys
poor financial conditions (support mother and sister) .
7. A Special Grievance Committee (dean of college of law, messengers as
members) was formed to investigate and recommend Morenos case.
a. Recommended termination of Moreno
b. SSC-R adopted; Moreno terminated due to violation of SSC-R
Faculty Manual
8. Moreno filed a complaint for illegal termination with NLRC, seeking
reinstatement, money claims, backwages, separation pay if
reinstatement is not viable, and attorneys fees.
9. LA- dismissed Morenos complaint for lack of merit;
a. acceptance as permanent faculty means bound by conditions not to
accept outside employment
b. Morenos admission of her violation - rendered her liable for the
penalty of dismissal as provided for in the SSC-R Faculty Manual.
10. NLRC- reversed LA; MR denied; CA- reinstated LA;
11. SSC-Rs contention:
a. Dismissal was valid because Moreno knowingly violated the
prohibition in the Faculty Manual, in accordance with the Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools, which was likewise contained in her
employment contract
b. Moreno committed (1) serious misconduct and (2) willful
disobedience against the school, thereby submitted herself to the
corresponding penalty provided for in the Faculty Manual and her
employment contract
ISSUE: WON valid dismissal of Moreno
RULING + RATIO: NO
1. Moreno has indeed committed misconduct against SSC-R. Her admitted
failure to obtain the required permission before she engaged in external
teaching engagements is a clear transgression of SSC-Rs policy.
2. However, said misconduct falls below the required level of gravity
that would warrant dismissal as a penalty.

Willful Disobedience
3. Under Art. 282(a) of the Labor Code, willful disobedience of the
employers lawful orders as a just cause for termination of employment
envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employees
assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness
being characterized by a "wrongful and perverse attitude"; and (2)
the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known
to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he has been
engaged to discharge.
Serious Misconduct
4. (NLRC v. Salgarino) Misconduct is defined as improper or wrong
conduct.
a. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of
action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and
implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment.
b. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning of the act must be
of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or
unimportant.
c. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in
connection with the work of the employee to constitute just cause
from his separation.
d. In order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant the
dismissal of an employee under paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the
Labor Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained
of has violated some established rules or policies. It is equally
important and required that the act or conduct must have been
performed with wrongful intent. (NLRC v Salgarino)
5. SSC-R miserably failed to prove that Morenos misconduct was
induced by a perverse and wrongful intent
a. It merely anchored Morenos alleged bad faith on the fact that she
had full knowledge of the policy that was violated and that it was
relatively easy for her to secure the required permission before she
taught in other schools
b. SSC-R failed to adduce any concrete evidence to prove that
Moreno indeed harbored perverse or corrupt motivations in violating
the aforesaid school policy
c. Moreno explained in detail her role as the breadwinner and the
grave financial conditions of her family. As previous requests for
permission had already been denied, Moreno was thus prompted to
engage in illicit teaching activities in other schools, as she
desperately needed them to augment her income. Instead of
submitting controverting evidence, SSC-R simply dismissed the
above statements as nothing more than a lame excuse3and are

clearly an afterthought, considering that no evidence was offered

to support them
6. It is the employer that has the burden of proving the lawful cause
sustaining the dismissal of the employee
a. Equipoise is not enough; the employer must affirmatively show
rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable
cause
7. While an employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the
promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities
of the employees, those directives, however, must always be fair and
reasonable, and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, must
be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the
infraction
a. In this case, the penalty is disproportionate to the offense
b. Special circumstances which should have been properly taken into
account in the imposition of the appropriate penalty
i. Moreno readily admitted her misconduct which was the first
she has ever committed against the school
ii. Her teaching abilities and administrative skills remained
apparently unaffected by her external teaching engagements
iii. She merely wanted to alleviate her familys poor financial
conditions
iv. No material damage or prejudice was caused to SSC-R
c. In Morenos contract of employment, one of the provisions therein
categorically stated that should a violation of any of the terms and
conditions thereof be committed, the penalty that will be imposed
would either be suspension or dismissal from employment. Thus,
contrary to its position from the beginning, SSC-R clearly had the
discretion to impose a lighter penalty of suspension and was not at
all compelled to dismiss Moreno under the circumstances
8. The dismissal of Moreno failed to comply with the substantive
aspect of due process. Despite SSC-Rs observance of procedural due
process, it nonetheless failed to discharge its burden of proving the
legality of Morenos termination from employment. Thus, the imposed
penalty of dismissal is hereby declared as invalid
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No 90083 dated 7 November
2006 is hereby REVERSED. Respondent San Sebastian College-Recoletos,
Manila, is hereby ordered to reinstate Petitioner Jackqui R. Moreno without
loss of seniority rights and other privileges. No pronouncement as to cost.