Dear Atty. Kathy,

 

My brother (B) is being investigated in the Company after his colleague reported their office chat group, where sadly, B was among those using profanity-laden, indecent and obscene language against the new female employees of their department.

It was also discovered during the investigation that B forwarded to his personal chat account a file in the office chat group containing the female employees’ employment details, which was for the department’s use only.

I am worried that B’s employment will be terminated due to such serious violations of the Company’s rules. Is there enough ground to dismiss him?

B has been with the Company for 7 years and has admitted what happened. Will this not temper the penalty?

 

Natasha

 

Dear Natasha,

In a similar case, the Supreme Court has ruled that actively participating in profane conversations with coworkers using company resources during office hours and sending company information to one’s personal email address in violation of company rules amount to serious misconduct, which is a just cause of terminating one’s employment.

The fact that one has been employed for six years at the time of the investigation, the employee is expected to be fully aware and very much familiar with office rules and regulations, and to be a good example in the implementation of company policies; and an employee’s admissions bolster the correctness of the findings.

Based on your narration, B admitted his violations of using obscene language in an office group chat and forwarded to his personal chat account the office file on employees’ employment details, which was supposed to be for the use of the department only.

Further, since B has been an employee of the company for seven years, it is expected that B must be fully aware of the company’s rules.

In this connection, the company, in the exercise of its management prerogative, can discipline its employees, impose appropriate penalties on their infractions under company rules, and may not be compelled to continue employing persons whose continuance in the service will be inimical to its interests.

Thus, under the ruling of the Supreme Court, such offenses amount to willful transgression of the company’s rules; and such acts render B unfit to continue working for the company, thus, for committing serious misconduct, B’s employment may be validly terminated for just cause.

(Janssen D. Perez versus JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. — Philippine Global Service Center, G.R. 256939, 13 November 2023)

Atty. Kathy Larios