ATTITUDE PROBLEM: EMPLOYEE WITH "ATTITUDE PROBLEM" MAY BE FIRED FROM WORK

An employee who cannot get along with his co-employees is detrimental to the company for he can upset and strain
the working environment. Without the necessary teamwork and synergy, the organization cannot function well.
Thus, management has the prerogative to take the necessary action to correct the situation and protect its
organization. When personal differences between employees and management affect the work environment, the
peace of the company is affected. Thus, an employee’s attitude problem is a valid ground for his termination. It is a
situation

Procedural Requirement: Compliance with the twin requirement of notice and hearing must also be proven by the
employer.

Quantum of Evidence required: Employee’s supposed “attitude problem” must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence. The mere mention of negative feedback from the employee’s team members is
not sufficient proof of her attitude problem. And her failure to refute the employer’s allegation of her
negative attitude does not amount to admission.

- John Hancock Life Insurance v. Davis, G.R. No. 154410, September 3, 2009

1. INCOMPETENCE, INEPTITUDE AND INEFFICIENCY

As a general concept, poor performance is not tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence in the
performance of official duties. Even an unsatisfactory rating cannot be a just cause for dismissal. They
becomes just causes only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties.

Procedural Requirement: Compliance with the twin requirement of notice and hearing must also be
proven by the employer.

Quantum of Evidence required: Employee’s supposed “attitude problem” must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence.

When to ascribe gross neglect? There must be lack of or failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or
the total absence of care in the performance of duties. In other words, there is gross neglect when the
employee exhibits thoughtless disregard of consequences without exerting effort to avoid them.

When to ascribe habitual neglect of duties? Habitual neglect involves repeated failure to perform
duties for a certain period of time, depending upon the circumstances, and not mere failure to
perform duties in a single or isolated instance.

RATIONALE:

Employer may validly terminate an employee having sufficient and valid reasons in terminating the
services of employee as her continued employment would be patently inimical to respondents’
interest. An employer "has the right to regulate, according to its discretion and best judgment, all
aspects of employment, including work assignment, working methods, processes to be followed,
working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline,
dismissal and recall of workers. So long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the
 employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees
under special laws or under valid agreements," his exercise of this management prerogative must be
upheld.

- Reyes-Rayel v. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings GR No. 174893, July 11, 2012

2. TERMINATION DUE TO FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH WEIGHT STANDARDS

BASIS:

The dismissal of must be based on a bona fide occupational qualification –

Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin
unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for performing
the job. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).

BFOQ is valid provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance.

Test in determining whether an employment policy is justified

1. The employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the
performance of the job.

2. The employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary.

3. The employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the
legitimate work-related purpose.

- British Columbia Public Service Employee Commission v. The British

Columbia Union [1999] 3 SCR 3, 1999 SCC 48

EXAMPLE: Weight standard/requirement as BFQQ for Cabin Crew

The standards violated in this case were not mere orders of the employer; they were the
prescribed weights that a cabin crew must maintain in order to qualify for and keep his or her position in
the company. In other words, they were standards that establish continuing qualifications for an
employees position. In this sense, the failure to maintain these standards does not fall under Article 282(a)
whose express terms require the element of willfulness in order to be a ground for dismissal. The failure to
meet the employers qualifying standards is in fact a ground that does not squarely fall under grounds (a) to
(d) and is therefore one that falls under Article 282(e) the other causes analogous to the foregoing.

By its nature, these qualifying standards are norms that apply prior to and after an employee is
hired. They apply prior to employment because these are the standards a job applicant must initially meet
in order to be hired. They apply after hiring because an employee must continue to meet these standards
while on the job in order to keep his job. Under this perspective, a violation is not one of the faults for which
an employee can be dismissed pursuant to pars. (a) to (d) of Article 282; the employee can be dismissed
simply because he no longer qualifies for his job irrespective of whether or not the failure to qualify was
willful or intentional.

- Yrasuegui vs. PAL, 569 SCRA 467, 2008

SUMMARY OF THE CASES:

1. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION and/or MICHAEL PLAXTON vs. JOANNA CANTRE
DAVIS, G.R. No. 169549 September 3, 2009

FACTS:

Respondent Joanna Cantre Davis was agency administration officer of petitioner John Hancock Life Insurance
Corporation. On October 18, 2000, Patricia Yuseco, petitioner’s corporate affairs manager, discovered that her wallet
was missing. She immediately reported the loss of her credit cards to AIG and BPI Express. To her surprise, she was
informed that “Patricia Yuseco” had just made substantial purchases using her credit cards in various stores in the
City of Manila. She was also told that a proposed transaction in Abenson’s-Robinsons Place was disapproved because
“she” gave the wrong information upon verification.

Because loss of personal property among its employees had become rampant in its office, petitioner sought the
assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The NBI, in the course of its investigation, obtained a security
video from Abenson’s showing the person who used Yuseco’s credit cards. Yuseco and other witnesses positively
identified the person in the video as respondent.

Consequently, the NBI and Yuseco filed a complaint for qualified theft against respondent in the office of the Manila
city prosecutor. But because the affidavits presented by the NBI (identifying respondent as the culprit) were not
properly verified, the city prosecutor dismissed the complaint due to insufficiency of evidence.

Meanwhile, petitioner placed respondent under preventive suspension and instructed her to cooperate with its
ongoing investigation. Instead of doing so, however, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal alleging that
petitioner terminated her employment without cause.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner validly dismissed respondent for cause analogous to serious misconduct.

RULING: 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.

The labor arbiter and the NLRC relied not only on the affidavits of the NBI’s witnesses but also on that of respondent.
They likewise considered petitioner’s own investigative findings.

2. INC SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. v. CAMPOREDONDO

G.R. No. 199931 September 7, 2015

DOCTRINE:

To amount to a valid dismissal, a seafarer must be handed a written notice of the charge against him and must be
given the opportunity to explain himself. Further, Section 17 of the POEA Terms and Conditions Governing the
Employment of Filipino Seafarers, dismissal for just cause may be affected without furnishing the seafarer with a
notice of dismissal only if there is a clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or the vessel.
FACTS:

In July 19, 2007, INC Shipmanagement, Inc. (INC), for and in behalf of Interorient Co. Ltd, hired Camporedondo as
chief cook on board a vessel for a period of 10 months. However, in September 11, 2007, the captain gave him a
return ticket to the Philippines to take a vacation. He was purportedly promised to be transferred to another vessel.
On September 12, 2007 or about a month and a half into his contract, Camporedondo was given a report of dismissal
for incompetence.

In 2008, Camporedondo filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal against INC. He alleged that he was dismissed due to
his stiff arm. However, he contended that he passed the medical and physical examination and despite his condition,
petitioners engaged his services. Furthermore, he asserted that he was made to sign a report that terminated his
contract without giving him the opportunity to explain or defend himself. INC, for its part, contended that the captain
complained about Camporedondo’s incompetence and/or poor performance due to his stiff right hand. INC also
argued that Camporedondo admitted his faults and voluntarily executed a quitclaim based on sufficient
consideration because they paid him his accrued benefits. LA ruled that INC illegally dismissed Camporedondo. The
NLRC reversed the LA Decision; but, CA reversed the NLRC and affirmed the LA decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not Camporedondo was illegally dismissed.

RULING: YES, Camporedondo was illegally dismissed.

The due execution of the report of incompetence was established; however, the contents of this report were
insufficient bases to dismiss respondent. The Report provided no detailed and did not particularly describe such
inability or specific acts that would lead to the conclusion that he was incompetent. An unsatisfactory rating can be
a just cause for dismissal only if it amounts to gross and habitual neglect of duties. Poor performance of an employee
does not necessarily mean that he is guilty of gross and habitual neglect of duties that would warrant dismissal

Petitioners also did not comply with the two-notice rule required in dismissing an employee. To amount to a
valid dismissal, an erring seafarer must be handed a written notice of the charge against him and must be given the
opportunity to explain himself. Further, under section 17 of the POEA Terms and Conditions Governing the
Employment of Filipino Seafarers, dismissal for just cause may be affected without furnishing the seafarer with a
notice of dismissal if there is a clear and existing danger to the safety of the crew or the vessel. In this case, no
hearing was conducted respecting respondent's alleged incompetence and poor performance, and granting him
opportunity to present countervailing evidence to disprove the charge against him. There was also no showing of
imminent danger to the crew or the vessel, so that the required notice may be dispensed with.

Lastly, the quitclaim that respondent executed did not bar him from filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against
petitioners. Said quitclaim was invalid because it did not fully or completely give or grant respondent what was due
him as a matter of law and justice. It only covered Camporedondo’s accrued leave credits and only a part or portion
of the amount of money actually and justly due him under the law; it was not a full and complete satisfaction of
what is due him under the law.

3. FLORDELIZA MARIA REYES-RAYEL v. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings Corporation and L&T International
Group Philippines, Inc.
 GR. No. 174893 July 11, 2012

Facts: In February 2000, PLTHC hired petitioner as Corporate Human Resources (CHR) Director for Manufacturing
for its subsidiary/affiliate company, L&T. In the employment contract, petitioner was tasked to perform functions in
relation to administration, recruitment, benefits, audit/compliance, policy development/ structure, project plan, and
such other works as may be assigned by her immediate superior, Frank Sauceda, PLTHC’s Corporate Director for
Human Resources.
On September 6, 2001, petitioner received a Prerequisite Notice from Sauceda and the Corporate Legal
Counsel of PLTHC, Ma. Lorelie T. Edles, which informs her that due to her various failure in the performance and
observance of various management directives, the company has lost its trust and confidence in her as an employee.
The Petitioners worst infraction was her undermining statements about the company’s Human resource Information
System (HRIS) of HR2 Program. This was taken by respondent as a flagrant inability to incite collaboration and
harmony within the Corporate Human Resources Division. In petitioner’s response she alleged that her failure to
observe such management directives was due to the malfunctioning email system assailing she failed to receive such
directives. She further denied causing Disharmony in her division. Petitioner emphasized that in June 2011 she
received a relatively good rating of 80.2% in her overall performance appraisal.

Issue: Whether or not there was a valid ground for petitioner’s termination from employment.

Hled: There exists a valid ground for petitioner’s termination from employment.

Jurisprudence provides that an employer has a distinct prerogative and wider latitude of discretion in dismissing a
managerial personnel who performs functions which by their nature require the employer’s full trust and
confidence. Petitioner, in the present case, was L&T’s CHR Director for Manufacturing. As such, she was directly
responsible for managing her own departmental staff. It is therefore without question that the CHR Director for
Manufacturing is a managerial position saddled with great responsibility. Because of this, petitioner must enjoy the
full trust and confidence of her superiors. Not only that, she ought to know that she is "bound by more exacting
work ethics" and should live up to high standard of responsibility. However, petitioner delivered dismal performance
and displayed poor work attitude which constitute sufficient reasons for an employer to terminate an employee on
the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Respondents also impute upon petitioner gross negligence and
incompetence which are likewise justifiable grounds for dismissal. The burden of proving that the termination was
for a valid cause lies on the employer. Here, respondents were able to overcome this burden as the evidence
presented clearly support the validity of petitioner’s dismissal.
First, records show that petitioner indeed unreasonably failed to effectively communicate with her
immediate superior. There was an apparent neglect in her obligation to maintain constant communication with
Sauceda in order to ensure that her work is up to par. This is evident from the various emails showing that she failed
to update Sauceda on the progress of her important assignments on several occasions. While petitioner explained
in her written reply to the Prerequisite Notice that such failure to communicate was due to the company’s computer
system breakdown, respondents however were able to negate this as they have shown that the computer virus
which affected the company’s system only damaged some email addresses of certain employees which did not
include that of Sauceda’s.

Second, the affidavits of petitioner’s co-workers revealed her negative attitude and unprofessional behavior
towards them and the company. In her affidavit, Agnes Suzette Pasustento, L&T’s Manager for the Corporate
Communications Department, attested to petitioner’s "badmouthing" of Sauceda in one of their meetings abroad
and of discussing with her about filing a labor case against the company. Also, in the affidavits of Rizza S. Esplana
and Ana Wilma Arreza, they narrated several instances which demonstrated petitioner’s notoriously bad temper.
They all described her to have an "irrational" behavior and "superior and condescending" attitude in the workplace.
It is well to state that as a CHR Director tasked to efficiently manage the company’s human resource team and
practically being considered the "face" of the Human Resource, petitioner should exhibit utmost concern for her
employer’s interest. She should likewise establish not only credibility but also respect from co-workers which can
only be attained if she demonstrates maturity and professionalism in the discharge of her duties. She is also expected
to act as a role model who displays uprightness both in her own behavior and in her dealings with others.
Third, most important is petitioner’s display of inefficiency and ineptitude in her job as a CHR Director. In
the affidavit of Ornida B. Calma, Chief Accountant of L&T’s affiliate company, petitioner, on two occasions, gave
wrong information regarding issues on leave and holiday pay which generated confusion among employees in the
computation of salaries and wages.

3. Armando Yrasuegi v. Philippine Airlines

Gr No. 168081 October 17, 2008

FACTS:

This case portrays the peculiar story of an international flight steward who was dismissed because of his
failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company. Petitioner Armando
G. Yrasuegui was a former international flight steward of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL). He stands five feet and eight
inches (58) with a large body frame. The proper weight for a man of his height and body structure is from 147 to 166
pounds, the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as mandated by the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of PAL. In
1984, the weight problem started which prompted PAL to send him to an extended vacation leave until November
1985. He was allowed to return to work once he lost all the excess weight. But the problem recurred. He again went
on leave without pay from October 17, 1988 to February 1989. Despite the lapse of ninety- day period given him to
reach his ideal weight petitioner remained overweight. ON January 3, 1990 he was informed of the PAL decision for
him to remain grounded until such time that he satisfactorily complies with weight standards. Again, he was directed
to report every two weeks for weight checks, which he failed to comply with.
On April 17, 1990 petitioner was formally warned that a repeated refusal to report for weight checks would
be dealt with accordingly. He was given another set of weight check dates, which he did not report to. On November
13, 1992, PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company standards on
weight requirements. Petitioner insists that he is being discriminated as those similarly situated were not treated
the same.
On June 1993, petitioner was formally informed by PAL that due to his inability to attain his ideal weight
and considering the utmost leniency extended to him which spanned a period covering a total of 5 years his services
were considered terminated effective immediately.
The Labor Arbiter held that weight standards of PAL are reasonable in view of the nature of the job of the
petitioner. However, the weight standards need not be complied with under pain of dismissal since his weight did
not hamper the performance of his duties. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The court of Appeals
ruled the weight standards of APL are reasonable. Thus, petitioner was legally dismissed because he repeatedly
failed to meet the prescribed standards. It is obvious that the issue of discrimination was only invoked by petitioner
for purposes of escaping the result oh his dismissal for being overweight.

ISSUE: Whether or not he was validly dismissed and cause of dismissal becomes an analogous case under
Art 282€ of the Labor Code

RULING:

Yes. A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion that they constitute a
continuing qualification of an employee in order to keep the job. The dismissal of the employee would fall under
Article 282€ of the Labor Code. In the case at bar, the evidence on record militates against petitioner’s claims that
obesity is a disease. That he was able to reduce his weight from 1984 to 1982 clearly shows that it is possible to lose
weight. The standards violated in this case were not mere orders of the employer; they were the prescribed weights
that a cabin crew must maintain in order to qualify for and keep his or her position in the company. In other words,
they were standards that establish continuing qualifications for an employee’s position. In this sense, the failure to
maintain these standards does not fall under Article 282(a) whose express terms require the element of willfulness
in order to be a ground for dismissal. The failure to meet the employers qualifying standards is in fact a ground that
does not squarely fall under grounds (a) to (d) and is therefore one that falls under Article 282(e) the other causes
analogous to the foregoing. In fine, the court hold that the obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his
work as flight attendant, becomes an analogous cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code that justifies his
dismissal from the service. His obesity may not be unintended, but is nonetheless voluntary.
As the CA correctly puts it, voluntariness basically means that the just cause is solely attributable to the
employee without any external force influencing or controlling his actions. This element runs through all just causes
under Article 282, whether they be in the nature of a wrongful action or omission. Gross and habitual neglect, a
recognized just cause, is considered voluntary although it lacks the element of intent found in Article 282(a), (c), and
(d).