Serious Misconduct

Samson vs. NLRC (544 SCRA 2008)

FACTS:

Petitioner Samson received a letter calling the attention of his conduct during a Sales and
Marketing Christmas gathering where Samson allegedly made utterances of obscene, insulting
and offensive words towards the Scheing-Plough Corporation Management Committee.

Complainant was given two days to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against
him and he was thereafter placed on preventive suspension. Samson replied stating that such
utterances were only made in reference to a decision taken by the management committee on
the Cua Lim Case and not to any specific person. Petitioner Samson was thereafter informed in
a letter that his employment was terminated. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring
the dismissal of him is illegal. Both parties appealed the decision; petitioner Samson filed a
partial appeal of the denial of his claim for holiday pay and the cash equivalent of the rice
subsidy; respondent company sought the reversal of the labor arbiter’s ruling of illegal
dismissal.

The NLRC found that dismissal was made for just cause.

ISSUE: Whether or not the actions made by Samson during a special gathering in uttering
obscene, insulting and offensive words towards The SPC Management Committee is a serious
misconduct to warrant dismissal?

HELD:

No. Petitioner’s dismissal was brought about by utterances made during an informal Christmas
gathering. For misconduct to warrant dismissal, it must be in connection with the employee’s
work. In this case, the alleged misconduct was neither in connection with the employee’s work,
as such utterances of petitioner is expected in informal gatherings; also, such conduct was not
even of such serious and grave character.

Furthermore, petitioner’s outburst was in reaction to the decision of the management in a

certain case and was not intended to malign on the person of the respondent company’s
Serious Misconduct

president and general manager. Respondent company itself did not seem to consider the
offense serious to warrant an immediate investigation. It is also provided in respondent
company’s rules and regulations that for conduct such as that of the petitioner, a first offense
would only warrant a “verbal reminder” and not dismissal. Petitioner’s position does not fall
within the definition of a managerial employee; and even assuming that he is, the ground
for loss of confidence is without basis as it was not clearly established. Therefore, there was
no just cause for petitioner’s dismissal and thus was unlawful.