Dear PAO,

Some of my colleagues were charged with serious misconduct for allegedly falsifying their time cards. From what we know, one of the reasons for the alleged falsification was due to my co-employees’ obedience to our superior instructing them to go to various places to accompany the latter in his private affairs. Having said these, can it be considered a defense to exonerate or exempt my co-employees from the charges that they were merely obeying the orders of our superior/boss?

Marlene

Dear Marlene,

Foremost, please be advised that an employer may terminate an employee based upon the just causes under our law. For brevity, Article 297 of Presidential Decree 442 of 1974, as amended and renumbered, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, dictates the instances where an employer may terminate an employment:

“Article. 297. Termination by Employer.

“An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

“(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.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In connection with the foregoing, elucidating in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC (GR 82467, June 29, 1989), penned by Associate Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, which has a similar factual milieu with the facts that you mentioned. In said case, the complainants were former security guards who were dismissed for falsification of their time cards. The dismissed security guards made false entries in their time cards showing that they reported for work on February 19 and 20, 1983 when the truth was that they went on a hunting trip to San Juan, Batangas, with their Chief Major, then head of the Administrative Services Department of the Security Directorate.

Besides the falsification of the entries for February 19 and 20, 1983 in their time cards, one of the dismissed security guards was also caught red-handed punching in not only his own time card but also the time cards of two other security personnel.

Records found that the security guards indeed went on a hunting trip to San Juan, Batangas, on February 19 and 20, 1983, upon the invitation of their department head. However, they defended their actions by saying “They went along to please him (Chief Major) because they believed that his invitation was equivalent to a command. Being an army man, their superior expected “total obedience” from his subordinates.

Finding the defense of obedience untenable, the high court explained in San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC that:

“xxx although it may be conceded that the private respondents acted under some degree of moral compulsion when they agreed to accompany Major Asaytuno on a hunting trip to San Juan, Batangas, they were certainly under no compulsion from him to falsify their time cards and thereby defraud the company by collecting wages for the dates when they did not report for work.

“In order for obedience to be considered as an exempting circumstance… it must be in compliance with a lawful order not opposed to a higher positive duty of the subaltern, and that the person commanding act within the scope of his authority. As a general rule, an inferior should obey his superior. But between a general law which enjoins obedience to a superior giving just orders, etc., and a prohibitive law which plainly forbids what the superior commands, the choice is not doubtful.

“In order to be exempted (on the ground of obedience) it must be shown that both the person who gives the order and the person who executes it are acting within the limitations prescribed by law. (People v. Wilson, 52 Phil. 919.)

“The falsification and fraud which the private respondents committed against their employer were inexcusable. Major Asaytuno’s initials on the false entries in their time cards did not purge the documents of their falsity. Their acts constituted dishonesty and serious misconduct, lawful grounds for their dismissal.” (Emphasis and Underscoring Supplied)

Consequently, the foregoing case illustrates that obedience to an unlawful order is not a defense to an act which constitutes dishonesty and serious misconduct. Stated otherwise, in order for obedience to be considered as an exempting circumstance, such must be in compliance with a lawful order of a superior, who must be acting within the scope of one’s authority.

In the facts that you have mentioned, it appears that akin to San Miguel v. NLRC, your co-employees followed an order from a superior who did not act within the scope of his or her authority. Due to this, your co-employees’ act of falsifying their time cards may amount to serious misconduct, which as initially provided — is a ground for termination.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]