Gross misconduct
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.
On June 26, 2010, Mercy Vinoya, supervisor of petitioner Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. (Sterling), called the attention of respondent Raymond Z. Esponga and his co-employees and prohibited them from taking a nap on the sheeter machine for safety reasons.
Esponga and his co-employees then transferred to a mango tree near the staff house. When Vinoya passed by them, 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 and said “Wala ka pala eh, puro ka dakdak. Baka pag ako nagsalita hindi mo kayanin.”
Esponga submitted a written explanation after having been so required. He, however, failed to attend scheduled administrative hearings. Thus, he was sent a termination notice dated Nov. 15, 2010 for gross and serious misconduct, gross disrespect to superior and habitual negligence. This prompted Esponga and KMM-Katipunan to file a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, damages and attorney’s fees against Sterling.
Does this complaint prosper?
Ruling: No.
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 the case at bench, the charge of serious misconduct is duly substantiated by the evidence on record.
Primarily, 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.
In de La Cruz v. National Labor Relations Commission, 258 Phil. 432 (1989), the dismissed employee shouted, “Sayang ang pagka-profes- sional mo!” and “Putang ina mo” at the company physician when the latter refused to give him a referral slip.
Likewise, in Autobus Workers’ Union (AWU) v. National Labor Relations Commission, 353 Phil. 419, 428-429 (1998), the dismissed employee told his supervisor “Gago ka” and taunted the latter by saying, “Bakit anong gusto mo, tang ina mo.”
Moreover, in Asian Design and Manufacturing Corporation v. Deputy Minister of Labor, 226 Phil. 20, 21 (1986), the dismissed employee made false and malicious statements against the foreman (his superior) by telling his co-employees: “If you don’t give a goat to the foreman, you will be terminated. If you want to remain in this company, you have to give a goat.” The dismissed employee therein likewise posted a notice in the comfort room of the company premises, which read: “Notice to all Sander — Those who want to remain in this company, you must give anything to your foreman.”
In Reynolds Philippines Corporation v. Eslava, 221 Phil. 614 (1985), the dismissed employee circulated several letters to the members of the company’s board of directors calling the executive vice president and general manager a “big fool,” “anti-Filipino” and accusing him of “mismanagement, inefficiency, lack of planning and foresight, petty favoritism, dictatorial policies, one-man rule, contemptuous attitude to labor, anti-Filipino utterances and activities.”
Hence, it is well-settled that accusatory and inflammatory language used by an employee towards his employer or superior can be a ground for dismissal or termination. (Mendoza, J., SC 2nd Division, Sterling Paper Products Enterprises, Inc. vs. KMM-Katipunan, et.al., G.R. No. 221493, August 2, 2017).