8/26/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly charged or collected from the worker.(emphases and underscoring supplied) PTC explains: In view of the POEA's strict requirements and the severity of the corresponding penalty imposed at the first instance, it is only just and reasonable for PTC to take measures to ensure that any act of its officials, employees and representatives that could possibly be construed as a violation of the rules above be given the same degree of importance and dealt with similarly. xxx Bearing in mind that PTC is accountable for the actions of its officials, employees and representatives and that the offenses underscored in the POEA Rules carry the corresponding penalty of cancellation of license for a single violation thereof, the strict implementation of company rules and regulations is indispensable.[40] The Court agrees with the above explanation of PTC. Indeed, in light of the strict provisions of the POEA Rules, it was reasonable for PTC to protect itself by crafting its Code of Discipline that imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal for those who commit acts that, if construed to be PTC's, would merit the cancellation of its license. Thus, as it is recognized that company policies and regulations, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, are generally valid and binding on the parties and must be complied with until finally revised or amended,[41] the dismissal of de Leon — hinged on a rule that provides for dismissal even on the first instance of violation — should therefore be upheld. The Court has, in the past, upheld a company's management prerogatives so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements.[42] In this case, the Court holds that PTC was well within its management prerogative in terminating de Leon's employment upon a finding of violation of its company rules. It is likewise well to note that, as pointed out by PTC and by the NLRC in its Resolution, de Leon's actions reveal that he was aware that he was violating a company rule. By his own admission in the present petition, he instructed Adefuin to give the gift in question to Brillante in the far end of the office, as he knew that there was a CCTV camera in their work area.[43] He thus knew that he was at risk of getting caught doing an act he should not do. Despite this, he still received the gift and did not return the same to Acar or even turned over the same to the Human Resources Department as instructed by the Code of Discipline. This therefore constitutes willful misconduct or disobedience of company rules that further justifies PTC's decision to terminate de Leon's employment. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated July 19, 2016 and Resolution dated May 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 138932 is hereby AFFIRMED. https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65291 9/12