BENGUET

OFFICES

and
5TH

CORTEZ
Floor,

GT

Tower,

LAW
Ayala

Avenue, Makati City

Phone: (02) 660-03-18 Fax: (02) 6600320

Email:

bc@benguetandcortezlawoffices.com

Legal Opinion:
We, Atty. Jamellen Benguet & Atty. Ralph Anthony Cortez are in the position that
our client Mr. John Lloyd Cruz, a packer in the Rebiscuit Company located at Valenzuela
City was illegally terminated from his work due to his frequent urination which makes
him go to the comfort room involuntarily merely to answer to the call of nature.
As stated by our client, he has been working for the company for about a year
thus making his status as a regular employee. We have fairly presumed that there exists
an employer employee relationship between our client and the company based on the
facts given by the former.
As provided for by the Labor code and jurisprudence, employer employee
relationship exists when there is a (1) power of the employer in the selection and
engagement of the employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) the power of dismissal; and (4)
the employers power to control the employees conduct not only as to the result of the
work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it, which is the
most important element.
There seems to be the existence of all the elements to determine whether or not
employer employee relationship exists based on the facts given by our client. After
establishing the existence of the employer employee relationship between our client
and the company, we now go to the issue of illegal termination of our client.
Under Art. 282 of the Labor code, it states that an employer may terminate an
employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful
disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in
connection with his work; (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer
or duly authorized representative; (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee
against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly
authorized representatives; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
It seems that the company terminated our client based on Art. 282 (a) and (b) of
the Labor code. However, in the case of Dimabayao vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 122178.
February 25, 1999), the Supreme Court ruled that willful disobedience of the employer's
lawful orders, as a just cause for dismissal of an employee envisages the concurrence of
at least two requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful being

BENGUET
OFFICES

and
5TH

CORTEZ
Floor,

GT

Tower,

LAW
Ayala

Avenue, Makati City

Phone: (02) 660-03-18 Fax: (02) 6600320

Email:

bc@benguetandcortezlawoffices.com

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.
The Supreme Court also ruled in the same case that, Danilo Dimabayao, an
employee who was terminated because of leaving his workplace to relieve himself from
the call of nature can hardly be characterized as abandonment, much less a willful or
intentional disobedience of company rules since he was merely answering the call of
nature over which he had no control. Restraining one's bowel movement can result in
great discomfort and affect adversely the efficiency, and even the health, of the worker.
Thus, Petitioner's disobedience to his employer's orders can easily be categorized as
trivial and unimportant, and as such, does not merit a penalty as harsh as dismissal.
Likewise, there was no gross and habitual neglect of his duties by petitioner since
he merely relieved himself which, as already adverted to, could not have constituted
abandonment of work. Neither could it have disrupted the operations of the company
as to cause it irreparable damage.
Following the cited laws and jurisprudence, we, therefore submit that our client
Mr. John Lloyd Cruz be considered as illegally dismissed thus making him entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full
backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the
time of his actual reinstatement under Art. 279 of the Labor code.