Unlawfully dismissed

Willful disobedience or insubordination is a just cause for the dismissal of an employee. What constitutes willful disobedience is explained in this case of Pinky.

Pinky was hired by a company engaged in insurance business (PCSI) as a claims adjuster with the task of settling claims of its Quezon City branch. Through her almost six years of employment, PCSI noticed Pinky’s poor services towards clients of its insurance agencies particularly the ASPI. Later PCSI discovered that Pinky’s poor services may be due to the fact that she also owned an insurance agency (SRJ). So PCSI sent Pinky a Notice to Explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for her poor services to the clients of ASPI. After submitting her explanation, a meeting was held between the officers of PCSI and Pinky concerning the SRJ and ASPI incidents wherein it was resolved that claims under SRJ shall be approved by head office and the claims under ASPI will be transferred to the head office for processing.

A few weeks later Pinky received another Notice to Explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for her poor services towards the clients of another insurance agency,   Sonrics Consultants and Insurance Brokers Inc. (Sonrics). But Pinky failed to submit any written explanation and to appear at the head office to explain herself. So PCSI issued a final written Warning ordering Pinky to be more circumspect with her claims servicing, and admonishing her that any repetition of the same offense or any analogous acts shall be dealt with more severely and shall warrant a more drastic disciplinary action including termination. But Pinky refused to receive said warning, so she was directed to report to the head office and explain her alleged refusal to receive the final warning. Instead of reporting at the head office, Pinky requested for an informal meeting with the PCSI vice president, Romy Casino at a nearby restaurant because she did not want to see the faces of the other officers.

At the meeting, Casino asked Pinky if she was willing to voluntarily retire over the Sonrics incident and at the same reminded her again to report to the head office. But due to Pinky’s recalcitrance to comply with the directives, she received two notices four days later even before she could send her letter expressing her confusion and frustration over the way the administrative proceedings against her were being handled. The first asking her to explain why she did not report to the head office; and the second, dismissing her on the ground of insubordination.

Consequently, Pinky filed a complaint against PCSI before the National Labor Relations Office (NLRC) for (a) illegal dismissal; (b) underpayment of wages; (c) non-payment of overtime pay, service incentive leave pay, accrued leave pay and 13th to 16th month pay; (d) retirement pay benefits under the Company’s Provident Fund (e) actual, moral and exemplary damages; and (f) attorney’s fees. Pinky claimed that PCSI could no longer use the ASPI and Sonrics incidents against her considering that she was already penalized with multiple warnings to be more circumspect with her claims servicing. She also contended that when she received the Final Notice to Report to the head office she met with Casino at a restaurant and told him that the Sonrics incident had been dealt with already. Pinky thus concluded that PCSI was bent on easing her out of work, pointing out that that the Notice to Explain and the Notice of Termination was dated and sent on the same day. Was Pinky correct?

Yes. Pinky was indeed illegally dismissed. Willful disobedience or insubordination as a just cause for dismissal requires (1) that the employee’s assailed conduct must have been characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude and (2) that the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which she has been engaged to discharge.

In this case, the charge of insubordination was grounded on Pinky’s refusal to report to the head office despite due notice. These directives indeed appear, reasonable, lawful and made known to Pinky. But it cannot be said that such directives pertain to her duties as claims adjuster that is, handling and settling claims. Such directives were for the purpose of affording Pinky an opportunity to be heard. So Pinky’s failure or refusal to comply with them should only be deemed as a waiver of her right to procedural due process and is not tantamount to willful disobedience. Besides, PCSI already issued Pinky’s Notice of Termination on the same day the Notice to Explain, charging her of insubordination was issued. These notices were sent even before Pinky could write her explanation expressing her confusion and frustration over the administrative proceedings against her in wordings that were not discourteous, accusatory or inflammatory. So Pinky’s dismissal was without just cause, hence unlawful. PCSI should pay her separation pay, back-wages, benefits under the Provident Fund, 14th month pay and attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of all the monetary awards. (Pinky’ case is similar to the case of Sta. Isabel vs. Perla Compania de Seguros Inc. G.R. 219430, November 7, 2016.)

Email: [email protected]