Janssen Pharmaceutica vs.

Silayro
G.R. No. 172528, February 26, 2008| 546 SCRA 628

FACTS
 Janssen Pharmaceutica (JANSSEN) is a division of Johnson and Johnson Philippines engaged in
the sale and manufacture of pharmaceutical products. In 1989, Benjamin Silayro (SILAYRO) was
hired as Territory/Medical Representative.
 Sometime 1994, Silayro was found guilty of granting unauthorized premium/free goods to and
unauthorized pull-outs from customers. JANSSEN failed to attach records to support its
allegations but Silayro admitted to granting unauthorized goods but vehemently denied violating
the rule on or having been charged with unauthorized pull-outs.
 Silayro was also investigated for dishonesty in connection with the Rewards of Learning Test.
This ROL test ROL test is a one-page take-home examination, with two questions to be answered
by an enumeration of the standards of performance by which territory representatives are rated
as well as the sales competencies expected of territory representatives. It was discovered that
SILAYRO’s ROL answers were written by another co-employee, Joedito Gasendo.
 He was then sent subsequent memos:
o July 1998 - A memo requiring an explanation for the ROL incident.
o August 1998 - A memo requiring Silayro to explain his delay in submitting process reports
 September 1998 – Silayro submitted an explanation stating that the delay in the
submission of reports was caused by the deaths of his grandmother and his aunt, and the
hospitalization of his mother. He also averred that he had asked his co-employee Joedito
Gasendo to write his answers to the ROL test because at the time when the examination
was due, he already needed to leave to see his father-in-law, who was suffering from
cancer and confined in a hospital in Manila.
o October 20, 1998 – another memo regarding the discrepancies between the number of
product samples recorded in his Daily/Weekly Coverage Report (DCR) and the number of
product samples found in his possession during the 14 October 1998 audit. The actual
number of sample products found in his possession exceeded the number of sample
products he reported to JANSSEN.
 Silayro explained, through a "Response Memo" dated 24 October 1998, that he failed to count
the quantity of samples when they were placed in his custody. Thus, he failed to take note of the
excess samples from previous months. He, likewise, admitted to committing errors in posting the
samples that he distributed to some doctors during the months of August and September 1998.
 He was later on issued a Notice of Disciplinary action upon finding him guilty of the following
offenses: delayed submission of process reports and cheating on his ROL test. He was subjected
to a one day suspension without pay for each offense.
 On the same day, he was also issued a Notice of Preventive Suspension for Dishonesty in
Accomplishing other Accountable documents in connection with the October discrepancy. He was
then directed to surrender the car, promotional materials and all other accountabilities by Nov. 25,
1998.
 In line with his promise to surrender his accountabilities, SILAYRO wrote a letter asking his
superiors where he should return his accountabilities but he did not receive any instructions.
 SILAYRO’s services were later on terminated by JANSSEN. SILAYRO was found guilty of
dishonesty in that issue of the discrepancy of the samples and failing to return the company
vehicle and other accountabilities in violation of Sec. 9.5.5 of the Code of Conduct. He was also
found to be a habitual offender.
 SILAYRO later on filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal.
 The Labor Arbiter found the penalty of dismissal too harsh and ordered his reinstatement without
payment of backwages. NLRC declared the reinstatement improper and that the dismissal was
just and authorized. The CA declared the dismissal illegal, granted reinstatement , ordered
payment of backwages and if reinstatement is no longer feasible, payment of separation pay.

ISSUE
 Whether or not there were sufficient grounds for silayro’s dismissal .

HELD
NO, there was no sufficient ground for his dismissal. The SC affirmed the decision of the CA

 To constitute a valid dismissal from employment, two requisites must concur: (1) the dismissal
must be for any of the causes provided in Article 282 of the Labor Code; and, (2) the employee
must be given an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself
 With regard to the issue of his dishonesty in accomplishing his report on product samples,
JANSSEN failed to present evidence that SILAYRO was guilty of dishonesty in accomplishing the
report. It

 In termination cases, the burden of proof rests with the employer to show that the dismissal is for
just and valid cause. Failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified
and therefore was illegal. Dishonesty is a serious charge, which the employer must adequately
prove, especially when it is the basis for termination.

 In this case, JANSSEN had not been able to identify an act of dishonesty, misappropriation, or
any illicit act, which the respondent may have committed in connection with the erroneously
reported product samples. JANSSEN merely relied on the fact that the number of product
samples SILAYRO reported was incorrect. While respondent was admittedly negligent, his errors
alone are insufficient evidence of a dishonest purpose. Since fraud implies willfulness or wrongful
intent, the innocent non-disclosure of or inadvertent errors in declaring facts by the employee to
the employer will not constitute a just cause for the dismissal of the employee. In addition, the
subsequent acts of respondent belie a design to misappropriate product samples. So as to
escape any liability, SILAYRO could have easily just submitted for audit only the number of
product samples which he reported. Instead, he brought all the product samples in his custody
during the audit and, afterwards, honestly admitted to his negligence. Negligence is defined as
the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have
exercised in a similar situation.

 The SC found that SILAYRO did not commit any willful violation, rather he merely failed to
exercise the standard care required of a territory representative to carefully count the number of
product samples delivered to him.

 The gravest charge that SILAYRO faced was cheating in his ROL test. Although he avers that he
formulated the answers himself and that he merely allowed his co-employee Joedito Gasendo to
write down his answers for him, the SC found this excuse to be very flimsy. The ROL test
consists of one page and two straightforward questions, which can be answered by more or less
ten sentences. He could have spared the few minutes it would take to write the examination. If he
had lacked the time due to a family emergency, a request for an extension would have been the
more reasonable and honest alternative.

 The improper taking of the ROL test, while it puts into question the examinee’s moral character,
does not result in any potential loss of property or damage to the reputation of the employer. The
respondent’s ten years of commendable performance cannot be cancelled out by a single
mistake made during a difficult period of his life, a mistake that did not pose a potential danger to
his employer.

 SILAYRO’s violations of petitioner’s Code of Conduct, even if taken as a whole, would not fall
under the just causes of termination provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code. They are mere
blunders, which may be corrected. JANSSEN failed to point out even a potential danger that
respondent would misappropriate or improperly dispose of company property placed in his
custody. It had not shown that during his employment, that SILAYRO took a willfully defiant
 attitude against it. It also failed to show a pattern of negligence which would indicate that he is
incapable of performing his responsibilities. At any other time during his employment, he had
shown himself a commendable worker.

 Nonetheless, the infractions committed by SILAYRO, while disproportionate to a penalty of

dismissal, will not be overlooked. The suspension of five months without pay, imposed by the
Court of Appeals, would serve as a sufficient and just punishment for his violations of the
company’s Code of Conduct.