Totality of Offenses

Once in a while, I feel the need to post something on law. After all, this blog started out as a blawg and the posts here on law are what get the most traffic. Almost everyday, someone reads my post on illegal dismissal and similar posts, when all my other posts are long forgotten. But since I find it difficult to muster the energy to write a full-length article on a legal topic, I’ve decided to feature quotes instead from Philippine Supreme Court decisions that bear on a particular topic. Here’s the SC in “ERIC ALVAREZ, substituted by ELIZABETH ALVAREZ-CASAREJOS, Petitioner, vs. GOLDEN TRI BLOC, INC. and ENRIQUE LEE, Respondents” (G.R. No. 202158; September 25, 2013) on the Totality of Offenses rule:

In Merin v. MRC, the Court rules that in determining the sanction imposable to an employee, the employer may consider and weight his other past infractions, thus:

The totality of infractions or the number of violations committed during the period of employment shall be considered in determining the penalty to be imposed upon an erring employee. The offenses committed by petitioner should not be taken singly and separately. Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and ability separate and independent of each other. While it may be true that petitioner was penalized for his previous infractions, this does not and should not mean that his employment record would be wiped clean of his infractions. After all, the record of an employee is a relevant consideration in determining the penalty that should be meted out since an employee’s past misconduct and present behavior must be taken together in determining the proper imposable penalty. Despite the sanctions imposed upon petitioner, he continued to commit misconduct and exhibit undesirable behavior onboard. Indeed, the employer cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests. It has the right to dismiss such an employee if only as a measure of self-protection.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: