Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

I INTRODUCTION TO LABOR LAW 3. MAJOR PRINCIPLES IN PHILIPPINE LABOR LAW -…

- - - - EMPLOYEE SELECTION
        
        DISCIPLINE
        
        TO PRESCRIBE COMPANY RULES AND REGULATIONS
        
        DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES
        
        TRANSFER AND PROMOTION OF EMPLOYEES
        
        DEMOLITION (DEMOTION?) OF EMPLOYEES
        
        3 more items...
        
        PROMOTION DEFINED
        Promotion, on the other hand, is the advancement from one position to another with an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized by law, and usually accompanied by an increase in salary.||| (National Federation of Labor Unions v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 90739, [October 3, 1991], 279 PHIL 386-397)
        
        1 more item...
        
        REQUISITES OF PROMOTION
        
        ADVANCEMENT FROM ONE POSITION TO ANOTHER **
        **OR
        
        UPWARD VERTICAL MOVEMENT OF EMPLOYEE'S RANK/POSITION
        For promotion to occur, there must be an advancement from one position to another or an upward vertical movement of the employee's rank or position.
        (Echo 2000 Commercial Corp. v. Obrero Filipino-Echo 2000 Chapter-CLO)
        
        2 more items...
        
        DISMISSAL POWERS ARE INHERENT; DISMISSAL FOR CAUSE QUALIFIES
        RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE
        We have consistently ruled that the power to dismiss an employee is a recognized prerogative inherent in the employer's right to freely manage and regulate his business. The law, however, in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. The worker's right to security of tenure is not an absolute right, for the law provides that he may be dismissed for cause.
        (Sutherland Global Services (Phils.), Inc. v. Labrador, G.R. No. 193107, [March 24, 2014], 730 PHIL 295-307)F
        
        FAILURE TO FAITHFULLY COMPLAY WITH CRR = JUST CAUSE FOR DISMISSAL,
        DEPENDING ON CIRCUMSTANCES
        The failure to faithfully comply with the company rules and regulations is considered to be a just cause in terminating one's employment, depending on the nature, severity and circumstances of non-compliance. "An employer 'has the right to regulate, according to its discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including work assignment, working methods, processes to be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.'"||| (Sutherland Global Services (Phils.), Inc. v. Labrador, G.R. No. 193107, [March 24, 2014], 730 PHIL 295-307)
        
        RATIO:
        GUIDELINES FOR DISMISSAL (Redundancy)
        ...dismissal is not implemented arbitrarily and is not tainted with bad faith against the dismissed employees.
        
        DISMISSAL ON ITS OWN
        DOES NOT ESTABLISH BAD FAITH
        A dismissal may be contrary to law but by itself alone, it does not establish bad faith to entitle the dismissed employee to moral damages. The award of moral and exemplary damages cannot be justified solely upon the premise that the employer dismissed his employee without just or authorized cause.||| (Echo 2000 Commercial Corp. v. Obrero Filipino-Echo 2000 Chapter-CLO, G.R. No. 214092, [January 11, 2016], 776 PHIL 737-754)
        
        1 more item...
        
        EMPLOYER'S POWERS
        
        PRESCRIBE REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
        
        PROVIDE CERTAIN DISCIPLINARY MEASURES IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT SAID RULES
        
        ASSURE THAT THE SAME WOULD BE COMPLIED WITH
        An employer has the prerogative to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary for the proper conduct of its business, to provide certain disciplinary measures in order to implement said rules and to assure that the same would be complied with.
        
        An employer enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees.
        It is axiomatic that appropriate disciplinary sanction is within the purview of management imposition.
        
        EMPLOYER MAY CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT STRICTLY OR NOT STRICTLY
        Thus, in the implementation of its rules and policies, the employer has the choice to do so strictly or not, since this is inherent in its right to control and manage its business effectively.
        
        EMPLOYER MAY IMPOSE LIGHTER SANCTIONS THAN THOSE PRESCRIBED BY ITS RULES; MAY EVEN CONDONE VIOLATIONS COMPLETELY
        Consequently, management has the prerogative to impose sanctions lighter than those specifically prescribed by its rules, or to condone completely the violations of its erring employees.
        
        2 more items...
        
        EMPLOYER IS FREE TO DETERMINE
        ALL ASPECTS OF EMPLOYMENT
        FROM HIRING TO FIRING
        It is a well-settled rule that labor laws do not authorize interference with the employer's judgment in the conduct of his business. The determination of the qualifications and fitness of workers for hiring and firing, promotion or reassignment, are exclusive prerogatives of management.
        The Labor Code and its implementing Rules do not vest in the Labor Arbiters nor in the different Divisions of the NLRC (nor in the courts) managerial authority.
        The employer is free to determine, using his own discretion and business judgment, all elements of employment, "from hiring to firing,"
        (National Federation of Labor Unions v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 90739, [October 3, 1991], 279 PHIL 386-397)
        NFL, et. al., v., NLRC, 202 SCRA 346 [1991]
        
        UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION; OR
        
        THOSE PROVIDED BY LAW
        except in cases of unlawful discrimination or those which may be provided for by law. There is none in the instant case.
        
        LAW OR AGREEMENT REQUIRED AS BASIS FOR LA/NLRC'S ACTING ON CLAIMS
        However, before the labor arbiter or the Commission can favorably act on these claims, the said claims must be based on law or appropriate agreement. Otherwise, this would be a violation of the free will of management to conduct its own business affairs. The labor arbiter, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the employer, should have a ground where he can base his findings. Evidently, there is no law nor agreement upon which the petitioner may justify his demand for a salary increase. Neither has the employer committed a grave abuse of discretion.||| (National Federation of Labor Unions v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 90739, [October 3, 1991], 279 PHIL 386-397)
    - - WHEN THE INTERESTS OF LABOR AND CAPITAL ARE CONFLICTING, THE LAW MUST TILT IN FAVOR OF LABOR
        This ruling is only in keeping with the constitutional mandate for the State to afford full protection to labor such that, when conflicting interests of labor and capital are to be weighed on the scales of social justice, the heavier influence of the latter should be counterbalanced by the sympathy and compassion the law must accord the underprivileged worker.
        (PT&T Corp. v. NLRC)
        
        IF DOUBT EXIST BETWEEN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY ER AND EE, IT IS RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE EMPLOYEE
        If doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and that of the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.
        (Hocheng Phil. Corp. v. Farrales)
        
        THUS, EMPLOYER HAS BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW THAT DISMISSAL WAS FOR JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE
        Thus, the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.
        (Hocheng Phil Corp v. Farrales)
        
        BUT SUPERVISORIAL EMPLOYEES ARE SUBJECT TO STRICTER RULES OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
        However, a supervisorial employee is subject to stricter rules of trust and confidence. Under management prerogative, the employer enjoys a wider latitude of discretion to assess a supervisorial employee’s continuing trustworthiness than if he/she were an ordinary rank-and-file employee.
        (Hocheng Phil. Corp. v. Farrales
        
        TRUE EVEN IF ER CLAIMS EE RESIGNED
        The employer has the burden of proving, in illegal dismissal cases, that the employee was dismissed for a just or authorized cause. Even if the employer claims that the employee resigned, the employer still has the burden of proving that the resignation was voluntary.||| (Pascua v. Bank Wise, Inc., G.R. Nos. 191460 & 191464, [January 31, 2018])
        
        ER AND EE ARE PRESUMABLY ON UNEQUAL FOOTING
        The presumption is that the employer and the employee are on unequal footing so the State has the responsibility to protect the employee.
        (Pascua v. Bank Wise)
        
        BUT THIS PRESUMPTION MUST BE TAKEN ON A CASE-TO-CASE BASIS
        This presumption, however, must be taken on a case-to-case basis.||| (Pascua v. Bank Wise, Inc., G.R. Nos. 191460 & 191464, [January 31, 2018])
        
        IF SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR EMPLOYMENT, EQUAL FOOTING
        In situations where special qualifications are required for employment, such as a Master's degree or experience as a corporate executive, prospective employees are at a better position to bargain or make demands from the employer. (Pascua v. Bank Wise, Inc., G.R. Nos. 191460 & 191464, [January 31, 2018])
        
        EMPLOYEES WITH SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS WOULD BE ON EQUAL FOOTING WITH ERs
        Employees with special qualifications would be on equal footing with their employers...
        
        1 more item...
      - ALL LABOR LEGISLATION AND ALL LABOR CONTRACTS SHALL BE CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF SAFETY & DECENT LIVING OF LABORERS
        NCC Article 1702 . In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
    - - RELATIONS BETWEEN CAPITAL AND LABOR ARE IMPRESSED WITH PUBLIC INTEREST
        Article 1700. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
        ||| (Pascua v. Bank Wise, Inc., G.R. Nos. 191460 & 191464, [January 31, 2018])
    - - ART. 4 HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO RESOLVE DOUBTS IN EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF EEs
        Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Code — that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the Labor Code should be interpreted in favor of the workingman. This principle has been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts in the evidence presented by the employer and the employee.||| (Peñaflor v. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 177114, [January 21, 2010], 624 PHIL 490-506)
    - - 2 TYPES OF ATTY'S FEES
        
        ORDINARY
        
        EXTRAORDINARY
        We explained in PCL Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 34 that there are two commonly accepted concepts of attorney's fees — the ordinary and extraordinary.
        
        ORDINARY CONCEPT = COMPENSATION TO LAWYER BY HIS CLIENT
        In its ordinary concept, an attorney's fee is the reasonable compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services the former renders; compensation is paid for the cost and/or results of legal services per agreement or as may be assessed.
        
        EXTRAORDINARY CONCEPT = INDEMNITY FOR DAMAGES PAID BY LOSING PARTY
        In its extraordinary concept, attorney's fees are deemed indemnity for damages ordered by the court to be paid by the losing party to the winning party. (See Article 2208 for when Atty's fees may be awarded)
        (Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa MWC-East Zone Union v. Manila Water Company, Inc., G.R. No. 174179, [November 16, 2011], 676 PHIL 262-279)
        
        ARTICLE 111 OF THE LABOR CODE CONTEMPLATES EXTRAODINARY CONCEPT OF ATTY'S FEES
        We also held in PCL Shipping that Article 111 of the Labor Code, as amended, contemplates the extraordinary concept of attorney's fees and that Article 111 is an exception to the declared policy of strict construction in the award of attorney's fees.
        
        NO NEED TO SHOW THAT ER ACTED MALICIOUSLY OR IN BAD FAITH IN WITHHOLDING WAGES
        Although an express finding of facts and law is still necessary to prove the merit of the award, there need not be any showing that the employer acted maliciously or in bad faith when it withheld the wages.
        
        RATIO: ART. 4,
        In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and implementing regulations, the employee's welfare should be the primary and paramount consideration.
        This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as embodied in Article 4 of the Labor Code (which provides that "[a]ll doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of [the Labor Code], including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor") and Article 1702 of the Civil Code (which provides that "[i]n case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer").||| (Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa at Kawani sa MWC-East Zone Union v. Manila Water Company, Inc., G.R. No. 174179, [November 16, 2011], 676 PHIL 262-279)
    - - INTERPRETATION OF AN ER'S PROGRAM PROVIDING FOR SEPARATION BENEFITS ARE CONSTRUED IN EE'S FAVOR
        In the interpretation of an employer's program providing for separation benefits, all doubts should be construed in favor of labor. After all, workers are the intended beneficiaries of such program and our Constitution mandates a clear bias in favor of the working class.
        (Phil. National Construction Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission)
    - - ART. 4 DOES NOT APPLY TO CBAs
        Article 4 of the Labor Code should not have been resorted to as this applies only in case of doubt in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations.
        (Marcopper Mining Corp v. NLRC)
        
        CBAs IS A CONTRACT, GOVERNED BY NCC's INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS
        The CBA being a contract, the rules embodied in the Civil Code on interpretation of contracts should govern. The intent of the parties should be ascertained by considering relevant provisions of the CBA on the retirement plan, the group life insurance, and bereavement assistance together with Section 1 in the light of Article 1374 of the Civil Code.||| (Marcopper Mining Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 83207)
      - ART. 1702 APPLIES TO CBA
        Any doubts or ambiguity in the contract between management and the union members should be resolved in the light of Article 1702 of the Civil Code that: "In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer." This is also in consonance with the principle enunciated in the Labor Code that all doubts should be resolved in favor of the worker.||| (Plastic Town Center Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 81176, [April 19, 1989], 254 PHIL 587-594)
        
        SIR: CBA IS LAW BETWEEN ER AND UNION
        The CBA is the law between the employer and the union.
        The CBA's provisions now prevail over the labor contract. HOWEVER the CBA cannot go below the minimum requirements provided by the Labor Code.
        
        SIR:
        Pag may nakita kayong union, that means or it is highly likely that there's a CBA
  - - - LAW MANDATES TWIN NOTICE REQUIREMENTS TO EE'S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS
        The law mandates the twin notice requirements to the employee's last known address. 21 Thus, it should be held liable for non-compliance with the procedural requirements of due process.
        (Agabon v. NLRC)
        
        What are those twin requirements?
      - WHERE DISMISSAL IS FOR JUST CAUSE, LACK OF STAUTORY DUE PROCESS SHOULD NOT NULLIFY DISMISSAL OR RENDER IT ILLEGAL/INEFFECTUAL
        Where the dismissal is for a just cause, as in the instant case, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory rights, as ruled in Reta v. National Labor Relations Commission. 36
        The indemnity to be imposed should be stiffer to discourage the abhorrent practice of "dismiss now, pay later," which we sought to deter in the Serrano ruling. The sanction should be in the nature of indemnification or penalty and should depend on the facts of each case, taking into special consideration the gravity of the due process violation of the employer.
        (Agabon v. NLRC)
        
        WENPHIL OR BELATED DUE PROCESS RULE
        The rule thus evolved: where the employer had a valid reason to dismiss an employee but did not follow the due process requirement, the dismissal may be upheld but the employer will be penalized to pay an indemnity to the employee. This became known as the Wenphil or Belated Due Process Rule.
        (Agabon v. NLRC)
        
        SERRANO RULE: BACKWAGES
        On January 27, 2000, in Serrano, the rule on the extent of the sanction was changed. We held that the violation by the employer of the notice requirement in termination for just or authorized causes was not a denial of due process that will nullify the termination. However, the dismissal is ineffectual and the employer must pay full backwages from the time of termination until it is judicially declared that the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause.
        
        WENPHIL FAILED TO BE A DETERRENT
        The rationale for the re-examination of the Wenphil doctrine in Serrano was the significant number of cases involving dismissals without requisite notices. We concluded that the imposition of penalty by way of damages for violation of the notice requirement was not serving as a deterrent. Hence, we now required payment of full backwages from the time of dismissal until the time the Court finds the dismissal was for a just or authorized cause.
        
        SERRANO TRIED TO MAKE A STRONGER DETERRENT BY IMPOSING FULL BACKWAGES
        Serrano was confronting the practice of employers to "dismiss now and pay later" by imposing full backwages.
        We believe, however, that the ruling in Serrano did not consider the full meaning of Article 279 of the Labor Code which states:
        
        THE SERRANO RULING DOES NOT CONSIDER ART. 279. PAYMENT OF BACKWAGES IS JUSTIFIED ONLY IF THE EMPLOYEE WAS UNJUSTLY DISMISSED.
        This means that the termination is illegal only if it is not for any of the justified or authorized causes provided by law.
        Payment of backwages and other benefits, including reinstatement, is justified only if the employee was unjustly dismissed.
        The fact that the Serrano ruling can cause unfairness and injustice which elicited strong dissent has prompted us to revisit the doctrine.
        
        1 more item...
        
        ABANDONMENT WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY RESULT IN A VALID DISMISSAL
        It must be stressed that in the present case, the petitioners committed a grave offense, i.e., abandonment, which, if the requirements of due process were complied with, would undoubtedly result in a valid dismissal.
        (Agabon v. NLRC)
        
        EE WHO IS GUILTY OF ABANDONMENT OR VIOLATIVE OF ART. 282 SHOULD NOT BE PROTECTED BY THE SOCIAL JUSTICE CLAUSE
        An employee who is clearly guilty of conduct violative of Article 282 should not be protected by the Social Justice Clause of the Constitution. Social justice, as the term suggests, should be used only to correct an injustice. As the eminent Justice Jose P. Laurel observed, social justice must be founded on the recognition of the necessity of interdependence among diverse units of a society and of the protection that should be equally and evenly extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economic life, consistent with the fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to the greatest number." 34
        (Agabon v. NLRC)
        
        SECURITY OF TENURE IS A PREFERRED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT TECHNICAL INFRIMITIES IN LABOR PROCEEDINGS
        CANNOT DEFEAT
        Under the Constitution and the Labor Code, the State is bound to protect labor and assure the rights of workers to security of tenure. Security of tenure is a preferred constitutional right that technical infirmities in labor proceedings cannot defeat.
        (Diamond Taxi vs Felipe Llamas, Jr.)
        
        BURDEN OF PROOF OF JUST CAUSE IS ON EMPLOYER; FAILURE TO DISCHARGE THIS BURDEN = DISMISSAL WAS ILLEGAL
        The burden of proving that there is just cause for termination is on the employer. Failure to show that there was valid or just cause for termination would necessarily mean that the dismissal was illegal.
        
        MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE IS TEMPERED WITH THE EE'S RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE
        The management prerogative is tempered with the employee's right to security of tenure: workers are entitled to substantive and procedural due process before termination.
        
        NOMINAL DAMAGES SHOULD BE ORDERED
        Under the Civil Code, nominal damages is adjudicated in order that a right of the plaintiff, which has been violated or invaded by the defendant, may be vindicated or recognized, and not for the purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any loss suffered by him. 37
        As enunciated by this Court in Viernes v. National Labor Relations Commissions, 38 an employer is liable to pay indemnity in the form of nominal damages to an employee who has been dismissed if, in effecting such dismissal, the employer fails to comply with the requirements of due process. The Court, after considering the circumstances therein, fixed the indemnity at P2,590.50, which was equivalent to the employee's one month salary. This indemnity is intended not to penalize the employer but to vindicate or recognize the employee's right to statutory due process which was violated by the employer.
        
        P30,000 WAS AWARDED
        The violation of the petitioners' right to statutory due process by the private respondent warrants the payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages. The amount of such damages is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, taking into account the relevant circumstances. 40 Considering the prevailing circumstances in the case at bar, we deem it proper to fix it at P30,000.00. We believe this form of damages would serve to deter employers from future violations of the statutory due process rights of employees. At the very least, it provides a vindication or recognition of this fundamental right granted to the latter under the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules.
  - - - DUE PROCESS UNDER THE LABOR CODE HAS TWO ASPECTS:
        
        SUBSTANTIVE
        
        PROCEDURAL i.e. MANNER OF DISIMSSAL
        Due process under the Labor Code, like Constitutional due process, has two aspects: substantive, i.e., the valid and authorized causes of employment termination under the Labor Code; and procedural, i.e., the manner of dismissal.
        
        PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS ARE FOUND IN IMPLEMENTING RULES OF PD 442
        Procedural due process requirements for dismissal are found in the Implementing Rules of P.D. 442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines in Book VI, Rule I, Sec. 2, as amended by Department Order Nos. 9 and 10. 27 Breaches of these due process requirements violate the Labor Code.
        
        STATUTORY DUE PROCESS vs CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS
        Therefore statutory due process should be differentiated from failure to comply with constitutional due process.
        
        STATUTORY DUE PROCESS PROTECTS EMPLOYEES FROM BEING UNJUSTLY TERMINATED WITHOUT JUST CAUSE AFTER NOTICE & HEARING
        ...statutory due process found in the Labor Code and Implementing Rules protects employees from being unjustly terminated without just cause after notice and hearing.
        
        CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS PROTECTS INDIVIDUALS FROM GOV'T, ASSURING HIM OF HIS RIGHTS IN CRIMINAL/CIVIL/ADMIN PROCEEDINGS
        Constitutional due process protects the individual from the government and assures him of his rights in criminal, civil or administrative proceedings; while...
    - - SIR: WHY DUE PROCESS APPLIES:
        JOB IS A PROPERTY RIGHT
        A person's job is a property right and, therefore, falls under the due process clause
      - SIR: JUST VS AUTHORIZED CAUSE
        Just Cause vs Authorized Cause
        Just causes of termination, EE is terminated because he/she did something wrong.
        
        SIR: SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS REQ
        Substantive Due Process requires that the dismissal falls under either Just or Authorized Cause.
        
        SIR: PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS REQ
        Procedural Due Process requires that the procedure for dismissal is followed.
        There is a different procedure required for dismissal for just cause and for authorized cause.
        
        PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
        JUST CAUSE
        
        NOTICE TO EXPLAIN
        
        ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE
        
        NOTICE OF TERMINATION
        
        PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZED CAUSE
        
        30 Days Notice to the Employee
        
        Notice to the DOLE
        
        Payment of Separation Pay
        
        SIR: CONCEPT OF GRACEFUL EXIT
        This is where the employer has grounds to dismiss the employee based on just cause, but he lets the employee resign so that there is no record.
        
        GRACEFUL EXIT IS NOT TO BE A SHORTCUT FOR DISMISSAL
        
        The second time sir said it, he didn't say "just" so i'm not sure bigla haha
        
        SIR: ACTS IN HIS PERSONAL LIFE CANNOT BE USED AS GROUNDS FOR DISMISSAL
        The grounds for dismissal are based on the acts of the worker in his capacity as an employee. His actions in his personal life outside of work cannot be used as grounds for dismissal.
        
        SIR: DRUNK + ARRESTED IN PERSONAL LIFE, CANNOT BE DISMISSED
        If he gets drunk and wanders to company premises in the course of his personal lifestyle and the police arrested him, he cannot be dismissed based on such acts.