Krimen na ginawa sa katrabaho, maaaring maging sanhi ng pagkakasisante

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | August 10, 2021

Dear Chief Acosta,

Nahuli ang pinsan ko na nagnakaw ng gamit ng kanyang kasamahan sa trabaho. Alam kong mali ang ginawa niya, ngunit talaga bang dapat siyang matanggal sa kanyang pribadong trabaho kung hindi naman gamit mismo ng kanyang employer ang ninakaw niya? Ang pagkakaalam ko kasi ay inire-require ng batas na ang krimen na nagawa ng manggagawa ay laban sa kanyang amo o pamilya nito. – Levi

Dear Levi,

Partikular na nakasaad sa ating batas ang mga legal na sanhi upang matanggal ang pribadong manggagawa sa kanyang trabaho. Bagaman isa rito ang krimen ng manggagawa, tulad ng pagnanakaw, laban sa kanyang amo o pamilya nito, hindi nangangahulugang ang krimen na ginawa ng naturang manggagawa sa kanyang katrabaho ay walang legal na epekto. Nais naming bigyang-diin na ang paggawa ng krimen sa isang katrabaho ay basehan din upang matanggal sa trabaho ang pribadong manggagawa. Ito ay napapaloob sa “other causes analogous” na nakasaad sa ilalim ng Artikulo 297 ng Labor Code of the Philippines:

“ART. 297 (282). Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

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

Other causes analogous to the foregoing.” (Binigyang-diin)

Alinsunod sa nasabing probisyon, maaaring tanggalin ang iyong pinsan sa kanyang trabaho kung siya ay nagnakaw ng gamit ng kanyang katrabaho. Mahalaga lamang na mapatunayan, maliban sa akto ng pagnanakaw na kanyang ginawa ay boluntaryo, sadya o ginusto niyang gawin ang naturang krimen. Para sa karagdagang kaalaman, nakasaad sa bahagi ng naging desisyon ng ating Korte Suprema sa kasong John Hancock Life Insurance Corporation and/or Michael Plaxton vs. Joana Cantre Davis (564 SCRA 92, G.R. No. 169549, September 3, 2008, Ponente: Honorable former Chief Justice Renato Antonio C. Corona) ang sumusunod:

“In this case, petitioner dismissed respondent based on the NBI's finding that the latter stole and used Yuseco's credit cards. But since the theft was not committed against petitioner itself but against one of its employees, respondent's misconduct was not work-related and therefore, she could not be dismissed for serious misconduct.

Nonetheless, Article 282(e) of the Labor Code talks of other analogous causes or those which are susceptible of comparison to another in general or in specific detail. For an employee to be validly dismissed for a cause analogous to those enumerated in Article 282, the cause must involve a voluntary and/or willful act or omission of the employee.

A cause analogous to serious misconduct is a voluntary and/or willful act or omission attesting to an employee's moral depravity. Theft committed by an employee against a person other than his employer, if proven by substantial evidence, is a cause analogous to serious misconduct.” (Binigyang-diin)

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang inyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na inyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng inyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.