Employees in the Philippines enjoy security of tenure. As such, one’s employment may be terminated only for just and authorized causes as enumerated under the Labor Code, after observance of procedural due process.
One of the just causes for termination under the Labor Code is Willful Disobedience. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court said that for willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, two elements must concur, to wit: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful, that is 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 had been engaged to discharge.
One of the questions that usually arise in relation to willful disobedience as a ground for dismissal is: does one’s failure to render overtime work despite the presence of a lawful and valid order constitute willful obedience?
The case of Realda v. New Age Graphics, Inc. and Julian I. Mirasol, G.R. No. 192190, resolves the abovementioned question in the affirmative. The Honorable Supreme Court said:
The petitioners arbitrary defiance to Graphics, Inc.’s order for him to render overtime work constitutes willful disobedience (Emphasis supplied). Taking this in conjunction with his inclination to absent himself and to report late for work despite being previously penalized, the CA correctly ruled that the petitioner is indeed utterly defiant of the lawful orders and the reasonable work standards prescribed by his employer.
This particular issue is far from being novel as this Court had the opportunity in R.B. Michael Press v. Galit to categorically state that an employer has the right to require the performance of overtime service in any of the situations contemplated under Article 89 of the Labor Code and an employees non-compliance is willful disobedience. Thus:
For willful disobedience to be a valid cause for dismissal, these two elements must concur: (1) the employees assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, 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 had been engaged to discharge.
In the present case, there is no question that petitioners order for respondent to render overtime service to meet a production deadline complies with the second requisite. Art. 89 of the Labor Code empowers the employer to legally compel his employees to perform overtime work against their will to prevent serious loss or damage:
In the present case, petitioners business is a printing press whose production schedule is sometimes flexible and varying. It is only reasonable that workers are sometimes asked to render overtime work in order to meet production deadlines.
x x x
The issue now is, whether respondents refusal or failure to render overtime work was willful; that is, whether such refusal or failure was characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude. In Lakpue Drug Inc. v. Belga, willfulness was described as “characterized by a wrongful and perverse mental attitude rendering the employees act inconsistent with proper subordination.” The fact that respondent refused to provide overtime work despite his knowledge that there is a production deadline that needs to be met, and that without him, the offset machine operator, no further printing can be had, shows his wrongful and perverse mental attitude; thus, there is willfulness.
After a re-examination of the facts, we rule that respondent unjustifiably refused to render overtime work despite a valid order to do so. The totality of his offenses against petitioner R.B. Michael Press shows that he was a difficult employee. His refusal to render overtime work was the final straw that broke the camels back, and, with his gross and habitual tardiness and absences, would merit dismissal from service
