The SC recognized that the management has the right to formulate reasonable rules to regulate the conduct of its employees for the protection of its interests.
"These reasonable house rules are considered by the Court as lawful orders and therefore violations thereof will justify dismissal under Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code," Justice Renato Corona said in a January 27 decision.
The SC 2nd Division presided by Associate Justice Reynato Puno ruled that the employees are expected to abide by the lawful rules of their respective companies.
Only last week, the SC ruled that the dismissal of two employees of a textile manufacturing company for sleeping while on duty is within the bounds of the law because both of them continue to ignore company policy.
Records showed that Mercurio Peñaranda and Romeo Vidal had the habit of sleeping while on duty and ignored warnings from the management.
Peñaranda works as a packer while Vidal as drugman. They were caught sleeping on their job on two occasions while both of them were assigned at night shift.
Peñaranda was caught sleeping on February 22, 2001 on the table of the packing section for which he was suspended two days with a stern warning that a repetition of the offense would mean his dismissal.
But on March 30, 2001 Peñaranda was again caught sleeping while on duty and when he was ordered by the management to submit his formal explanation, he just denied being caught sleeping on the job. But his employer rejected his denial and dismissed him.
Vidal was also caught sleeping during work hours on March 25, 2001. He was also suspended for two days and was warned not to repeat such offense.
But on May 18, 2001, Vidal was caught sleeping for the second time, this time inside a container van parked beside the company premises. When asked to explain, he took it for granted.
After they were dismissed, Vidal and Peñaranda charged their employer before the Department of Labor for illegal dismissal, but the labor arbiter ruled against them.
The Supreme Court justices said; "The appellate court found that due process was violated because petitioner failed to conduct a hearing on the matter. We disagree."
"As long as the employee is given the opportunity to explain his side and to present evidence in support of his defense, due process is served," the SC ruled. - Rene U. Borromeo