Puwede bang masibak sa ‘di pagsisiwalat ng dating trabaho?

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | November 24, 2023

Dear Chief Acosta,

Kasalukuyan akong nagtatrabaho sa isang financing company sa loob ng higit dalawang taon na. Kamakailan lang ay ipinatawag ako ng HR manager sa kadahilanang hindi ko naibunyag ang dati kong trabaho. Ipinaliwanag kong hindi ko intensyong hindi ipaalam ang dati kong trabaho. Maaari ba akong matanggal dahil dito? - Marivic

Dear Marivic,

Ang iyong katanungan ay nasagot sa kasong Nancy Claire Pit Celis vs. Bank of Makati (A Savings Bank), Inc., G.R. No. 250776, 15 June 2022, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, kung saan ipinahayag ng ating Kagalang-galang na Korte Suprema ang mga sumusunod:

“In line with the Constitutional policy of giving protection to labor, the Civil Code and the Labor Code provide that doubts in the interpretation of labor legislation and contracts shall be construed in favor of labor. Likewise, the Court has consistently held that doubts in the appreciation of evidence in labor cases shall work to the advantage of labor.

In the case, respondent dismissed petitioner from employment as she allegedly violated its Code of Conduct for the subject infraction. According to respondent, petitioner did not state in her job application that she was once employed with the Bank of Placer to conceal her implication in the embezzlement case thereat. Respondent further explained that it could not have hired petitioner had it known about her involvement in such case.

Being faced with different interpretations of the subject provision, the Court adopts the construction which favors petitioner in view of the Constitutional policy of giving protection to labor and resolving doubtful labor provisions or contracts in favor of workers.

To be liable under the subject infraction, i.e., “knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment as a result of which employment is secured”, the employee must have performed an overt or positive act, i.e., giving false information in the application for employment. Considering that petitioner did not actually state any false information in her job application but merely omitted to reflect her past employment with the Bank of Placer, she could not have committed the alleged infraction.

From the foregoing, the labor tribunals aptly held that this is merely a case of an omission to disclose former employment in a job application, a fault which does not justify petitioner’s suspension and eventual termination from employment. It is well settled that “there must be a reasonable proportionality between the offense and the penalty. The penalty must be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction”. To dismiss petitioner on account of her omission to disclose former employment is just too harsh a penalty.”

Batay sa nabanggit na kaso, ang pagkukulang sa pagsisiwalat ng dating trabaho (an omission to disclose former employment) ay hindi isang makatarungang dahilan (just cause) upang wakasan ang kontrata ng paggawa sa pagitan ng isang empleyado at ng kanyang employer. Ang pagtanggal sa empleyado dahil lamang sa hindi niya pagsisiwalat ng kanyang dating trabaho ay napakabigat na parusa. Kung kaya, sa iyong sitwasyon, ang hindi paghayag ng nakaraan mong trabaho ay hindi nagbibigay ng katwiran para tanggalin ka sa trabaho.

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

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.