Samson v. NLRC [G.R. No. 121036, April 12, 2000]

FACTS: Petitioner Samson received a letter calling the attention of petitioner’s conduct during a Sales and Marketing Christmas gathering where Samson allegedly made utterances of obscene, insulting and offensive words towards the SPS’s 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 was thereafter informed in a letter that his employment was terminated. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal. Both parties appealed the decision; petitioner 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: W/N petitioner was validly dismissed.


HELD: No. Petitioner’s dismissal was brought about by utterances made during a n 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 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.