This case involves Raymond Esponga, who was dismissed by Sterling Paper Products for serious misconduct. [1] Esponga uttered foul language against his supervisor and gave her an obscene gesture in front of co-workers. [2] While Sterling argued this constituted serious misconduct warranting dismissal, Esponga claimed there was no just cause. [3] The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Esponga's actions did amount to serious misconduct as his conduct was disrespectful and in violation of company rules, related to his work duties, and demonstrated wrongful intent.
This case involves Raymond Esponga, who was dismissed by Sterling Paper Products for serious misconduct. [1] Esponga uttered foul language against his supervisor and gave her an obscene gesture in front of co-workers. [2] While Sterling argued this constituted serious misconduct warranting dismissal, Esponga claimed there was no just cause. [3] The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Esponga's actions did amount to serious misconduct as his conduct was disrespectful and in violation of company rules, related to his work duties, and demonstrated wrongful intent.
Original Description:
case digest sterling vs. kmm-katipunan
labor law labor case
This case involves Raymond Esponga, who was dismissed by Sterling Paper Products for serious misconduct. [1] Esponga uttered foul language against his supervisor and gave her an obscene gesture in front of co-workers. [2] While Sterling argued this constituted serious misconduct warranting dismissal, Esponga claimed there was no just cause. [3] The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Esponga's actions did amount to serious misconduct as his conduct was disrespectful and in violation of company rules, related to his work duties, and demonstrated wrongful intent.
This case involves Raymond Esponga, who was dismissed by Sterling Paper Products for serious misconduct. [1] Esponga uttered foul language against his supervisor and gave her an obscene gesture in front of co-workers. [2] While Sterling argued this constituted serious misconduct warranting dismissal, Esponga claimed there was no just cause. [3] The Supreme Court ultimately ruled Esponga's actions did amount to serious misconduct as his conduct was disrespectful and in violation of company rules, related to his work duties, and demonstrated wrongful intent.
Raymond Esponga was employed by Sterling as a machine operator. On June 26, 2010, Sterling supervisor Vinoya, found Esponga and his co-employees about to take a nap on the sheeter machine, thereon called their attention to prohibit for safety reasons.
Esponga and his co-employees then transferred to the mango tree near the staff house. When Vinoya passed by the staff house, she heard Esponga utter, "Huwag maingay, puro bawal. " She then confronted Esponga, who responded in a loud and disrespectful tone, "Puro kayo bawal, bakit bawal ba magpahinga?”
When Vinoya turned away, Esponga gave her the "dirty finger" sign in front of his co-employees and said "Wala ka pala eh, puro ka dakdak. Baka pag ako nagsalita hindi mo kayanin. "
After being served a notice to explain and several re-scheduled hearings due to Esponga’s fault, Sterling dismissed him for gross and serious misconduct.
In the illegal dismissal case filed by Esponga, the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Esponga, stating that Sterling failed to discharge the burden of proof. NLRC reversed the ruling, stating that the acts of Esponga were all violations of the Company Code of Conduct. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed NLRC’s ruling, stating that the utterances and gesture did not constitute gross misconduct.
Issue: Whether or not Esponga’s acts amount to serious misconduct
Ruling:
Yes. Sterling argues that Esponga's utterance of foul and abusive language against his supervisor, demonstrating a dirty finger, and defiance to perform his duties undeniably constitute serious misconduct. It added that Esponga's acts were not only serious, but they also related to the performance of his duties. Further, Sterling asserts that he was motivated by wrongful intent and that Esponga's failure to participate in the administrative investigation conducted on his infraction was a clear manifestation of his lack of discipline. It asserted that the existence of just and valid cause for Esponga's dismissal and its compliance with the due process requirements had been proven by clear, convincing and substantial evidence on record. Sterling reasoned that an employer has free rein and enjoys wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects of employment, including the prerogative to instill discipline in its employees and to impose penalties, including dismissal, upon erring employees.
Esponga replied that Sterling failed to establish the validity of his dismissal by clear and convincing evidence. He insisted that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter because the employer must affirmatively show rationally adequate evidence that the dismissal was for a justifiable cause.
Under Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code, serious misconduct by the employee justifies the employer in terminating his or her employment.
For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, the following elements must concur: (a) the misconduct must be serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties showing that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent.
Primarily, the utterance of obscene, insulting or offensive words against a superior is not only destructive of the morale of his co-employees and a violation of the company rules and regulations, but also constitutes gross misconduct.
Further, Esponga's assailed conduct was related to his work. Vinoya did not prohibit him from taking a nap. She merely reminded him that he could not do so on the sheeter machine for safety reasons. Esponga's acts reflect an unwillingness to comply with reasonable management directives.
Finally, Esponga was motivated by wrongful intent. He committed the acts in front of his co-employees, which evidently showed that he intended to disrespect and humiliate his supervisor.
