THE Supreme Court has ruled that failure to disclose previous employment is not a ground for dismissal or cause to terminate employment.
In a decision promulgated on June 15, 2022 but only made public last September 19, the SC Third Division granted the petition of Nancy Claire Pit Celis to reverse and set aside a Court of Appeals decision in June 2019 and resolution in December 2019 upholding her dismissal from her job.
The assailed CA rulings reversed and set aside the decision dated July 13, 2018 and the resolution dated October 26, 2018 of the National Labor Relations Commission that Celis’ employer, Bank of Makati (A Savings Bank), Inc. validly dismissed Celis.
Celis was hired on July 15, 2013 as an account officer of Bank of Makati’s Pasay City Branch.
On May 23, 2016, the bank assigned her to its Legal and External Agency Department as an administrative officer.
By the end of 2017, the Bank of Makati’s Human Resource Department received a report that Celis was previously employed with the Rural Bank of Placer (Bank of Placer), Surigao del Norte and was involved in a case concerning embezzlement of funds.
Court records showed that Celis did not disclose her past employment when she applied for a job with the Bank of Makati.
After an investigation and hearing, Celis was dismissed for violating the Bank of Makati’s Code of Conduct and Discipline for “knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment as a result of which employment is secured.”
Celis was terminated on the ground of “serious misconduct, fraud, or willful breach of trust and loss of confidence” under the Labor Code.
In reversing the appellate court’s decision, the SC stressed the Constitutional policy that whenever there are doubts in the interpretation of labor legislation and contracts, the former should be resolved in favor of labor.
In Celis’ case, the SC said that considering that she did not actually state any false information in her job application but merely omitted to reflect her past employment with the Bank of Placer, she could not have committed the alleged infraction of allegedly violating the bank’s Code of Conduct for concealing her previous employment.
“The labor tribunals aptly held that this is merely a case of an omission to disclose former employment in a job application, a fault which does not justify petitioner’s suspension and eventual termination from employment. The penalty must be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction. To dismiss petition on account of her omission to disclose former employment is just too harsh a penalty,” the ruling penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting said.
