The Supreme Court ruled that bringing home some hospital supplies committed by a duty nurse is a just cause to dismiss the employee. This was in the case of Saint Luke's Medical Center Inc. versus Madam X (disguised to protect her reputation), GR 212054, decided by the highest court of the land on 11 March 2015, through the pen of Madam Perlas-Bernabe, the ponente or the justice assigned to write the judgment. In that decision, the Court approved management's decision to dismiss the lady nurse.
The Court stressed in the decision that the right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, aptly called management prerogatives, gives the employers the freedom to regulate according to his discretion and best judgment all aspects of employment, including work assignments, 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 (citing Deles vs NLRC, 384 Phil 271, 2000 ). In this light, the Court refused to interfere with the employer's decision to terminate the services of the erring nurse.
The nurse in this case was caught by the security guard in possession of some syringes, cotton buds, and other small stuffs which do not really cost much. It was not the amount that was considered important. In fact, management did not suffer any material and financial damage because the act was not consummated. The nurse reasoned out that everyone in her unit is doing it because they did not want to be lacking in supplies during their duty hours. The nurse however admitted that she is aware of the rules that prohibit brining out such items.
The High Court emphasized that it is the fundamental duty of every employee to obey all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the employer, and any act constituting willful or intentional disobedience thereof, as a general rule, justifies termination of the contract of employment, and the dismissal of the employee based on just cause. (citing the case of Malabago versus NLRC, 533 Phil 292, 300, 2006). In this case of Saint Luke's, the High Court faulted the nurse for violating the rules of her employer that explicitly prohibits the bringing out of hospital supplies.
The Supreme Court also found as inconsequential that the employer hospital has not suffered any damage because the supplies were retrieved by the security guard. While damage aggravates the charge, the Court held that its absence does not mitigate nor negate the employee's liability. It does not matter either that there was no criminal charge filed. The rule is well-settled that an employee's guilt or innocence in a criminal charge is not determinative of the existence of a just or authorized cause for her dismissal.
What matters most in this case is that the Supreme Court did not hesitate to stand on the side of the fundamental principle that, while there is a need to protect labor, protection for the working class should not result to the oppression or destruction of the employers. Security of tenure should not shield undeserving employees from the force of the law. Social justice should be made the refuge of the guilty.