CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC. VS CARLOS ANTONIO BALAGOT

CAPITOL WIRELESS, INC.

VS

CARLOS ANTONIO BALAGOT
513 SCRA 672 (2007)

Double job per se is not illegal according to Labor Code.

Capitol Wireless, Inc. (Capwire) hired Carlos Antonio Balagot (Balagot) as collector on September 16, 1987. Carlos is required to work outside the office and Capwire assigned to him a motorcycle as a service vehicle, for which it shouldered expenses for gasoline and maintenance.

Balagot was discovered to have been rendering services to China Bank and that since 1992, Carlos had been concurrently employed with Contractual Concepts, Inc. (CCI), a local manpower company, which assigned him to render messengerial services to China Bank in the same year.

Capwire terminated his services on the ground of grave misconduct and willful breach of trust and confidence. Capwire contends that the time of work of Balagot to other companies overlaps with his work at Capwire. Balagot admitted the charge but he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Capwire and its President Epifanio Marquez.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Balagot was illegally dismissed

HELD:
Verily, jurisprudence recognizes as a valid ground for dismissal of an employee’s unauthorized use of company time. And from the evidence presented, Balagot used the company vehicle in pursuing his own interests, on company time and deviating from his authorized route without permission.

Capwire has all the right and reason to cry foul as this is a clear case of moonlighting and using the company’s time, money, and equipment to render service to another company.

The court said that there is no denying that taking on double job per se is not illegal according to the Labor Code, as extra income would go a long way for an ordinary worker like Balagot. The only limitation is where one job overlaps with the other in terms of time and/or poses a clear case of conflict of interest as to the nature of business of complainant’s two employers.

The contention of Balagot that he is working for China Bank after 5:00 pm is untenable because he was sighted by the HR director within the premises of the bank at 3:35 pm and as general knowledge, the banking industry follows the ordinary working hours from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and a bank has no use for an employee who can only be of service to it after 5:00 pm.