By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado
JANSSEN D. PEREZ VS. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A. – PHILIPPINE GLOBAL SERVICE CENTER, G.R. NO. 256939 (NOVEMBER 13, 2023): ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN PROFANE CONVERSATION WITH COWORKERS USING COMPANY RESOURCES DURING OFFICE HOURS AND SENDING COMPANY INFORMATION TO ONE’S PERSONAL EMAIL AMOUNT TO SERIOUS MISCONDUCT AND GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
The case stems from a disciplinary action and administrative proceeding taken by the employer, JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.-Philippine Global Service Center (“JP Morgan”), against its employee, Janssen D. Perez (“Perez”), for serious misconduct for participating in a private chatroom using company resources and engaging in an indecent, profane, and disrespectful language against other employees. Perez admitted that he responded with “hahaha” and “up down up down left right left right” in the private chatroom but denied using profane and abusive language. Regarding the charge of sending company information to his private e-mail, Perez denied the charges stating the information he sent was not confidential. However, Perez admitted that he was guilty of using the company resources properly.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Perez saying he was illegally dismissed. Labor Arbiter Marcial Galahad Makasiar held that the deplorable statements could not be imputed to Perez, who was only proven to have respondent “hahaha” and “up down up down left right left right” to his officemates’ remarks. Regarding the second charge, the Labor Arbiter held that there was no proof that what he emailed to his personal email were confidential and proprietary. However, the Labor Arbiter admitted that the “terms used in the conversations appeal to the prurient thoughts of the participants in the chatroom as the words introduced exemplify abrasive sexual demeanor” deserving dismissal. The NLRC affirmed the ruling of Labor Arbiter Makasiar. The Court of Appeals reversed the rulings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Hence, Perez filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court restated what is misconduct defined as the “transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.” The Court held that to validly justify the termination of employment, the misconduct must: (a) be serious, or of such grave and aggravated character and not trivial or unimportant; (b) relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and (c) show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.
The Court cited several cases of misconduct such as installing shunting wires and improperly using his knowledge to illegally obtain electric power from his employer in Yabut vs. MERALCO, G.R. No. 190436 (January 16, 2012); discriminating and treating badly crew members who were of different national and ethnic origin in Ocampo vs. International Ship Crew Management Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 232062 (April 26, 2021); and letter written by the employee against his employers was grossly discourteous in content and tenor as well as “accusatory and inflammatory” in Nissan Motors Philippines, Inc. vs. Angelo, G.R. No. 164181 (September 14, 2011). The Court also cited cases wherein misconduct committed were not serious but succeeding acts clearly exacerbated and escalated it making it serious and the employee deprave such as in Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union vs. Adamson University, G.R. No. 227070 (March 9, 2020), wherein a teacher blurted out an expletive. While uttering expletive loudly and suddenly is not grave misconduct per se, the teacher’s subsequent willful acts of refusing to acknowledge his mistake and attempting to cause further damage to a minor student aggravated the misconduct he committed and negated professionalism in his behavior. In Bernardo vs. Dimaya, G.R. 195584 (November 10, 2021), the Court considered the employee’s subsequent acts after committing a violation, such as his unjustified insistence not to comply with the company policy and passing the blame on his team members amounted to employee’s wrongful intent and willful disobedience warranting dismissal.
In the instant case, the Court held that Perez committed serious misconduct and JP Morgan validly terminated his employment. The Court held: “On the other hand, petitioner’s own admissions bolsters the correctness of the Court of Appeals’ ruling. Petitioner admitted responding ‘hahaha’ and ‘up down up down left right left right’ to lewd remarks about female colleagues, female and male genitalia, and the act of sexual intercourse in the Office Communicator. Even the labor arbiter found that ‘the terms used appeal to the prurient thoughts of the participants in the chatroom as the words introduced exemplify abrasive sexual demeanor that is typical of loose and depraved morality’ and ‘the use or display of such terms deserve dismissal.’
Petitioner also admitted that he forwarded company information to his personal email address knowing that only his company-designated email should be used for company-related purposes. Given the company policy to presume that all office emails are confidential, sending company email to his personal email address was a deliberate violation of the company rules.
Here, petitioner had been an employee of the Human Resources Department for more than six years, and thus, he was expected to be fully aware of the company rules. His own admission of participating and using the company chatroom in uttering indecent words about female colleagues and sending out company information to his personal email address amount to willful transgression of the company’s Guidelines on Workplace Behavior. His transgressions patently relate to the performance of his duties as part of the Human Resources Department, expected as he was to exhibit good conduct. His acts rendered him unfit to continue working for respondent. Thus, for committing serious misconduct, petitioner was validly terminated for a just cause.”