- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services industries
As background checks and digital due diligence become standard practice, employers are increasingly aware of their workers' conduct beyond the workplace. It is now common for companies in the Philippines to require applicants to submit a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) clearance confirming that they have no criminal record. Some even conduct periodic checks during employment, driven by a legitimate interest in maintaining workplace integrity and safety.
But these practices have raised an important legal question: what happens when an employer discovers that an employee has committed a crime entirely unrelated to their work? Can such off-duty conduct justify dismissal under Philippine labor law?
The Statutory Framework: What the Labor Code Allows
Article 297 of the Labor Code (formerly Article 282) lists the just causes for termination. Among them, paragraph (d) allows dismissal for the commission of a crime or offense against the employer, the employer's family, or its duly authorized representative. Read plainly, the law limits this ground to criminal acts committed against the employer or those closely connected to them.
By implication, crimes committed outside the scope of employment, i.e., those having no nexus to the employer, its property, or its people, fall outside this statutory ground. This strict reading was affirmed in International Rice Research Institute vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 97239 (12 May 1993), where the Supreme Court held that criminal acts committed outside work do not, by themselves, constitute just cause for dismissal. The Court ruled that the employer failed to prove that the employee posed a real danger to the workplace or exhibited a propensity for violence.
The Shift: When Off-Duty Conduct Reflects Moral Unfitness
This principle evolved in John Hancock Life Insurance Corporation vs. Davis, G.R. No. 169549 (3 September 2008). In that case, the employee was dismissed after being found guilty of theft against a co-employee. The Court upheld the dismissal, holding that such act was analogous to serious misconduct under Article 297(e). The ruling recognized that certain crimes, even if not directed against the employer, may still demonstrate moral unfitness incompatible with continued employment.
The key requirement, the Court clarified, is that the act must be voluntary, willful, and indicative of moral depravity or misconduct. Where off-duty behavior reflects character traits fundamentally inconsistent with the employee's duties, termination may be justified under analogous causes.
Balancing Integrity and Fairness
Still, the reach of this principle remains limited. Not every off-duty offense justifies termination. The law guards against arbitrary discipline, and employers must demonstrate a rational connection between the employee's conduct and legitimate business interests, such as safety, trust, or organizational reputation.
In Peckson vs. Robinsons Supermarket Corporation, G.R. No. 198534 (3 July 2013), the Court reaffirmed the employer's right to expect good conduct from employees but emphasized that disciplinary action must rest on valid company rules and fair procedure. Employers are thus encouraged to anchor decisions on clear internal policies, often contained in the Code of Conduct, requiring employees to maintain standards of integrity throughout their employment.
Best Practice: Prevention and Policy Clarity
Given the evolving jurisprudence, employers are well-advised to maintain precise policies on background checks and ongoing suitability for employment. Such provisions should be drafted in good faith, respecting both employee rights and the employer's prerogative to safeguard its operations.
The challenge lies in balancing two legitimate interests: the individual's right to security of tenure, and the employer's obligation to protect its workplace from risk. Policies that are overly broad or punitive may fail for being unreasonable, while lax enforcement may compromise organizational integrity.
A Continuing Tension
The Philippine approach reflects a careful equilibrium. On one hand, employment cannot be terminated merely for private misconduct unconnected to work. On the other, the law recognizes that certain off-duty conduct can erode the trust essential to the employment relationship.
As digital transparency and employer due diligence expand, this balance will continue to be tested. Ultimately, the lesson for both employers and employees is clear: conduct beyond the workplace is no longer invisible, but its consequences must still be judged with fairness, proportionality, and respect for due process.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
