Dear Atty. Vlad,

I am an owner of a small bus company in Valenzuela City. About a month ago, there was an accident involving a small bus and a private vehicle along MacArthur Highway while going to SM Valenzuela. To ensure that the drivers of my company are drug-free, a week ago, I announced that the company will conduct a drug test for all employees. After the said drug test, two driver-employees did not appear. The following week, I announced the conduct of another drug test. Again, the same driver-employees did not appear. As such, I went to the barracks where they were staying. I talked to them and specifically directed them to undergo the drug test. Despite specific directive to under the drug test, said driver-employees defied my directive and refused to undergo the drug test. Can I dismiss them because of their refusal to undergo the drug test?

Francis

□□□□□

Dear Francis,

From what you shared to me, you gave the subject employees, ample opportunity to follow your directive to undergo the drug test. However, despite such directive and opportunity given to them, they still defied you and refused to undergo the drug test.

In the case of Kakampi and its Members, Vitor Panuelos, et al. vs Kingspoint Express and Logistic, et al., G.R. No. 194813, 25 April 2012, the Supreme Court stated:

“As to whether Kingspoint Express complied with the substantive requirements of due process, this Court agrees with the CA that the concerned employees’ refusal to submit themselves to drug test is a just cause for their dismissal.

An employer may terminate an employment on the ground of serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work. Willful disobedience requires the concurrence of two elements: (1) the employee’s assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, 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. Both elements are present in this case.

As to the first element, that at no point did the dismissed employees deny Kingspoint Express’ claim that they refused to comply with the directive for them to submit to a drug test or, at the very least, explain their refusal gives rise to the impression that their non-compliance is deliberate. The utter lack of reason or justification for their insubordination indicates that it was prompted by mere obstinacy, hence, willful and warranting of dismissal.

x x x x x As to the second element, no belabored and extensive discussion is necessary to recognize the relevance of the subject order in the performance of their functions as drivers of Kingspoint Express. As the NLRC correctly pointed out, drivers are indispensable to Kingspoint Express’ primary business of rendering door-to-door delivery services. It is common knowledge that the use of dangerous drugs has adverse effects on driving abilities that may render the dismissed employees incapable of performing their duties to Kingspoint Express and acting against its interests, in addition to the threat they pose to the public.

Since your driver-employees have continued to defy your directive to undergo the drug test, you can terminate their employment after due process. It is of common knowledge that the use of dangerous drugs has an adverse effect on driving abilities, which may render them, incapable of performing their duties and even pose a threat to the public.

I hope that I was able to help you based on what you shared to me.

Atty. Vlad del Rosario