Instigation Is Not a Defense Against Valid Employee Dismissal for Drug Use

The Supreme Court has ruled that an employee caught using prohibited drugs at work cannot use instigation as a defense against dismissal, even if the employer or its agents set a trap. The case of Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 152329, April 22, 2003) clarifies the line between criminal liability and administrative discipline, and explains what happens when an employer refuses to comply with a reinstatement order pending appeal.

Facts of the Case

Alejandro Roquero and Rene Pabayo were ground equipment mechanics at Philippine Airlines (PAL). They were caught in a raid by PAL security officers and NARCOM personnel while possessing and using methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, inside company premises.

The two employees claimed they were instigated by a certain Jojie Alipato, who they said was introduced to them by a PAL manager. Alipato allegedly bragged about smuggling drugs into the company and persuaded them to try the drugs. Notably, Alipato was not arrested and had no employment record with PAL.

After a physical examination confirmed drug use, Roquero and Pabayo were charged administratively under the PAL Code of Discipline, which provides that any employee who takes or is under the influence of prohibited drugs while on company premises or on duty shall be dismissed. They were dismissed on July 14, 1994, prompting them to file an illegal dismissal case.

The Issue

The central question was whether an employee who was instigated into committing an offense can be validly dismissed from employment. A related issue concerned the employer's obligation to comply with a reinstatement order pending appeal.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed Roquero's dismissal, holding that instigation is only a defense against criminal liability, not against administrative dismissal. The Court reasoned that Roquero was guilty of serious misconduct for possessing and using shabu, a violation of company rules.

The Court emphasized that serious misconduct requires: (1) the act must be serious; (2) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duty; and (3) it must show the employee has become unfit to continue working. Using drugs while tasked with repairing and maintaining airplanes clearly met these standards, as drug use can impair judgment and endanger lives and property.

The Court also noted that even if the employees were acquitted in the criminal case on the ground of instigation, that acquittal did not erase their administrative liability. An acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve an employee from disciplinary action by the employer.

The Reinstatement Obligation

On the second issue, the Court ruled that an order of reinstatement by the Labor Arbiter is immediately executory even pending appeal, under Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715. The employer must either admit the employee back to work or reinstate him in the payroll.

Since PAL failed to reinstate Roquero despite a writ of execution and without any restraining order, the Court ordered PAL to pay his salaries from the time the reinstatement order was issued until the finality of the decision. The Court reiterated that technicalities have no room in labor cases, and the employer's unjustified refusal to reinstate entitles the employee to payment of wages during the appeal period.

Practical Takeaways

• Instigation is not a defense in administrative cases. An employee who willingly commits a prohibited act, even when induced by an employer's agent, can still be validly dismissed.
• Criminal acquittal does not bar dismissal. A finding of instigation in a criminal case does not automatically overturn an administrative dismissal.
• Safety-sensitive positions carry higher standards. Employees in jobs affecting public safety, such as aircraft maintenance, are held to strict compliance with company rules on drug use.
• Reinstatement orders are immediately executory. Employers who refuse to comply with a reinstatement order pending appeal may be liable for the employee's salaries during the appeal period.
• Procedural due process requires twin notices. Employers must give the employee notice of the charge and an opportunity to respond, followed by a notice of the decision.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.