ON THE basis of the evidence on record, the Court found that Moreno has indeed committed misconduct against the school SSC-R. Her admitted failure to obtain the required permission from the school before she engaged in external teaching engagements is a clear transgression of SSC-R’s policy.

However, said misconduct falls below the required level of gravity that would warrant dismissal as a penalty. Under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code, willful disobedience of the employer’s lawful orders as a just cause for termination of employment envisages the concurrence of at least two requisites: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful or intentional, the willfulness being characterized by a “wrongful and perverse attitude”; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he has been engaged to discharge.

For updates from around the country, follow Sun.Star on Twitter

After examining the records of the case, the Court found that SSC-R miserably failed to prove that Moreno’s misconduct was induced by a perverse and wrongful intent as required in Article 282(a) of the Labor Code. SSC-R merely anchored Moreno’s alleged bad faith on the fact that she had full knowledge of the policy that was violated and that it was relatively easy for her to secure the required permission before she taught in other schools.

This posture is utterly lacking. It bears repeating that it is the employer that has the burden of proving the lawful cause sustaining the dismissal of the employee. Even equipoise is not enough; the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.

Even if dismissal for cause is the prescribed penalty for the misconduct herein committed, in accordance with SSC-R Faculty Manual and Moreno’s employment contract, the Court found the same to be disproportionate to the offense. Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled that while an employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees, those directives, however, must always be fair and reasonable, and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, must be commensurate to the offenses involved and to the degree of the infraction.

The Supreme Court did not depreciate the misconduct committed by Moreno. Indeed, SSC-R has adequate reasons to impose sanctions on her. However, this should not be dismissal from employment. Because of the serious implications of this penalty, “our Labor Code decrees that an employee cannot be dismissed, except for the most serious causes.”

Considering the presence of extenuating circumstances in the instant case, the Court deems it appropriate to impose the penalty of suspension of one (1) year on Moreno, to be counted from 16 November 2002, the effective date of her illegal dismissal. However, given the period of time in which Moreno was actually prevented from working in the respondent school, the said suspension should already be deemed served.

Furthermore, the Court holds that Moreno should be reinstated to her former position, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, but without payment of backwages. (Jackqui R. Moreno vs. San Sebastian College-Recoletos, Manila, 550 SCRA 414 [2008].)