Legal dismissal for fighting inside company premises
The Supreme Court on June 22, 2015 decided a case in favor of management and against an employee who was found guilty of starting a fist fight with another worker inside company premises in connection with an intra-union politics. This was in the case of Cesar Naguit versus San Miguel Corporation, GR 188839, penned by the High Court's Mr Justice Diosdado Peralta, of the Third Division. The erring employee lost all his retirement benefits, which could have reached millions due to his long years of service.
The Supreme Court did not agree that the penalty of dismissal imposed upon Cesar Naguit was too harsh and was not commensurate to the infraction he has committed. The Court neither believed that the dismissal should have been reduced to mere suspension because the employee has had fifteen years of service and it was only his first offense. The Court adhered to the principle that fighting inside company premises is a valid ground for the dismissal of an employee. (citing the precedent in Malaya Shipping versus NLRC, 351 Phil 421, 1989 ).
It was emphasized that the act of assaulting another employee constitutes serious misconduct which, under Article 282, now 296 of the Labor Code, is a just cause for the termination of employment. This was enunciated by the Supreme Court in a series of decisions, including that in the case of Ha Yuan Restaurant versus NLRC, (516 Phil 124, 2006) as well as in Eastern Paper Mills versus NLRC, (252 Phil 618, 1989 ). The Court considered only reasonable on the part of the management to terminate the services of Naguit.
As to the employees' long years of service, the High Court held: " If the erring employee's long years of service would be regarded as a justification for moderating the penalty of dismissal, it will actually become a prize for disloyalty, perverting the meaning of social justice, and undermining the efforts of labor to cleanse its ranks of all undesirables" (citing Etcuban Jr versus Sulpicio Lines Inc, (489 Phili 453, 2005). The Court held that there is no distinction between a first offender and a habitual delinquent when the offense is serious misconduct.
It was the Court's opinion that " all the more should the employee's years of service be taken against him in the light of the finding of the lower tribunals that his violation of an established company rule was shown to be willful and such willfulness was characterized by a wrongful attitude.'' The Supreme Court also noted that Naguit has persisted in his arrogance. Thus: "The erring employee has never shown any feeling of remorse for what he has done x x x in inflicting injury upon a co-employee.'' He even refused to answer questions during the investigation.
What matters most in this decision is that the management prerogative to discipline employees has been upheld. Whilst employees continue to enjoy their constitutional right to security of tenure, management should indeed be respected in its exercise of the prerogatives to instill discipline in the work place. Without discipline, there can be no productivity and quality. And without productivity, the continuing viability of the business may yet be put in jeopardy. And that would not be good for the employees either.
- Latest
