He who comes to court must do so with clean hands

In the labor front, an employee who seeks redress for supposed acts of injustice by his employer, must make sure that he is not guilty of some offenses like fraud, serious misconduct, insubordination, or gross and habitual neglect of duty. Otherwise, the law will leave him where it found him. His fault or negligence would disqualify him from the remedies provided by law. While the courts and labor tribunals look upon workers not only with reason but also with compassion, it does not follow that the law would tolerate employees’ acts and omissions that betray bad faith and ineptitude. The law, in protecting the rights of workers, authorizes neither oppression nor injustice to employers.

In some cases, workers are not forthright in their charges and accusations against management. They either magnify certain acts of the employers and impute evil intentions to some simple inadvertence or perjure themselves by untruthfully creating scenarios, that portray imaginary acts of unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal, labor standards violation, discriminations, and other violations of law, regulations or contracts and policies. Of course, most of the workers are honest and truthful but it is unfortunate that some would go to the extent of not telling the truth. At times, decisions by labor tribunals lead to injustice due to some untruthful factual basis. While we should condemn all injustices against workers, we should not tolerate dishonest on the part of workers either.

In the case of HRA vs. Philcomsat (GR 168120), the Supreme Court on January 20, 2012, held that it was unfair on the part of an educated employee, like the complainant, to have received a sum of money from his employer, and after signing a receipt and a quitclaim to turn around and file a case against his employer. It is true that there are invalid quitclaims, especially when they are signed by unlettered workers who do not understand what they signed, and also when the amount granted was grossly disproportionate in relation to what is legally due. But when the amount awarded is fair and the worker is an educated man who fully understands the implications of the transaction, then it is highly unfair to allow the workers to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of their employers.

In the case of WUERTH PHILIPPINES vs. RY (GR 175932), decided by the High Court on February 15, 2012, a National Sales Manager of a pharma company charged his employer for illegal dismissal. The facts showed that he failed to return to work after his long sick leave. He also demanded reimbursement for medical expenses, in the amount of P94,000 for supposed purchases of medicines that were not supported by official receipts. The Supreme Court did not believe the charge of illegal dismissal and refused to order management to reimburse the medical expenses. The Court decried that the manager showed some measure of irresponsibility in refusing to go back to work in due time, considering the vital functions that waited to be performed, and were undone due the manager’s ineptitude.

In the case of NY vs. Meralco, (GR 190436) the High Tribunal on January 16, 2012 held that management did correctly in terminating the services of a supervisor who was found to have tampered electric metering installation in his own home, which defrauded the company of revenues. His 15 years of service, instead of mitigating his guilt, has instead aggravated the serious misconduct and breach of trust that he committed.

In all these cases, one thing is clear and sure: no employer can be compelled to retain employees who have shown, by their acts or omissions, to be unworthy of the trust reposed on them by management. While our labor laws do protect workers with utmost concern and even compassion, in the language of the Supreme Court: “Compassion is an imperative of every humane society, but only when the worker is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege. Social justice can not be made the refuge of scoundrels.” Well, the words “rascals’’ and “scoundrels’’ may be too strong. But, at any rate, suffice it to say that whenever complainants come to court to seek justice, they better make sure that their hands are clean. As the say, the pot cannot call the kettle black.