Photo from Pexels | cottonbro studio
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
Article 297 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:
“ART. 297. [282] Termination by Employer. — An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
-
Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
-
Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
-
Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
-
Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and
-
Other causes analogous to the foregoing.”
In Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. vs. KMM-Katipunan and Raymon Esponga (G.R. No. 221493, August 2, 2017), the Supreme Court held that accusatory and inflammatory language used by an employee towards his employer or superior can be a ground for dismissal or termination.
The antecedents of the case are as follows:
In June 2006, Sterling imposed a 20-day suspension on several employees, including respondent Esponga, a machine operator, for allegedly participating in a wildcat strike. In a Notice of Disciplinary Action, the employees were warned that a repetition of a similar offense would compel the management to impose the maximum penalty of termination of services.
On June 26, 2010, Sterling’s supervisor Mercy Vinoya found Esponga and his co-employees about to take a nap on the sheeter machine. She called their attention and prohibited them from taking a nap thereon for safety reasons. They transferred to the mango tree near the staff house, when Vinoya passed by, she heard Esponga utter, “Huwag maingay, puro bawal.” She then confronted Esponga, who responded in a loud and disrespectful tone, “Puro kayo bawal, bakit bawal ba magpahinga?”
When Vinoya turned away, Esponga gave her the “dirty finger” sign in front of his co-employees abd saud “Wala ka pala eh, puro ka dakdak. Baka pag ako nagsalita hindi mo kayanin.”
Later that day, Esponga was found to have been not working as the machine assigned to him was not running. He was seen to be having a conversation with his co-employees, and he failed to submit his daily report from June 21 to June 29, 2010. Hence, a Notice to Explain (NTE) was served on Esponga, requiring him to submit his written explanation and to attend the administrative hearing.
Esponga submitted his written explanation denying the charges against him. However, Sterling found out that the NTE indicated a wrong date when the incident allegedly happened. Thus, an amended NTE was issued requiring him to submit his written explanation and to attend the administrative hearing scheduled on August 23, 2010. Esponga, however, failed to submit his written explanation and he did not attend the hearing.
Having found Esponga guilty of gross and serious misconduct, gross disrespect to superior and habitual negligence, Sterling sent a termination notice, dated November 15, 2010. This prompted Esponga and KMM-Katipunan to file a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, damages, and attorney’s fees against Sterling.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that Esponga was illegally dismissed. The NLRC reversed and set aside the LA ruling. On appeal, the CA reinstated the LA ruling holding that the utterances and gesture did not constitute misconduct.
The issue resolved by the Supreme Court in this case is whether the utterance of foul and abusive language against a supervisor amount to serious misconduct?
Under Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code, serious misconduct by the employee justifies the employer in terminating his or her employment.
Misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.To constitute a valid cause for the dismissal within the text and meaning of Article 282 of the Labor Code, the employee’s misconduct must be serious, i.e., of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.
Additionally, the misconduct must be related to the performance of the employee’s duties showing him to be unfit to continue working for the employer. Further, and equally, important and required, the act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent.
To summarize, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following elements must concur:
- The misconduct must be serious;
- It must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and
- It must have been performed with wrongful intent.
In this case, the charge of serious misconduct is duly substantiated by the evidence on record.
In a number of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that the utterance of obscene, insulting or offensive words against a superior is not only destructive of the morale of his co-employees and a violation of the company rules and regulations, but also constitutes gross misconduct.
Esponga’s assailed conduct was related to his work. Vinoya did not prohibit him from taking a nap. She merely reminded him that he could do so on the sheeter machine for safety reasons. Esponga’s acts reflect an unwillingness to comply with reasonable management directives.
The Court finds that Esponga was motivated by wrongful intent. To reiterate, Vinoya prohibited Esponga from sleeping on the sheeter machine. Later on, when Vinoya was passing by, Esponga uttered “Huwag maingay, puro bawal.” When she confronted him, he retorted “Puro kayo bawal, bakit bawal ba magpahinga?” Not contented, Esponga gave her supervisor the “dirty finger” sign and said “Wala ka pala eh, puro ka dakdak. Baka pag ako nagsalita hindi mo kayanin.” it must be noted that he committed all these acts in front of his co-employees, which evidently showed that he intended to disrespect and humiliate his supervisor.
An aggrieved employee who wants to unburden himself of his disappointments and frustrations in his job or relations with his immediate superior would normally approach said superior directly or otherwise ask some other officer possibly to mediate and discuss the problem with the end view of settling their differences without causing ferocious conflicts. No matter how the employee dislikes his employer professionally, and even if he is in a confrontational disposition, he cannot afford to be disrespectful and dare to talk with an unguarded tongue and/or with a baleful pen.
Time and again, the Court has put emphasis on the right of an employer to exercise management prerogative in dealing with its affairs including the right to dismiss its erring employees. It is a general principle of labor law to discourage interference with an employer’s judgment in the conduct of his business. As already noted, even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the employees, it also recognizes the employer’s exercise of management prerogatives. As long as the company’s exercise of judgment is in good faith to advance its interests and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of employees under the laws or valid agreements, such exercise will be upheld.
In another case, Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union vs. Adamson University (G.R. No. 227070, March 09, 2020), the Supreme Court pointed out that the law imposes many obligations on the employer such as providing just compensation to workers, and observance of the procedural requirements of notice and hearing in the termination of employment. On the other hand, the law also recognizes the right of the employer to expect from its workers not only good performance, adequate work and diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. The employer may not be compelled to continue to employ such persons whose continuance in the service will patently be inimical to his interests.
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.
