Whether or not there is valid ground for dismissing Nabil.

In the exercise of the employers management prerogatives, the employer is

allowed to promulgate rules and regulations and to enforce or implement the same
for the efficient operations and progress of the business. It is thus expected from
the employees to not only perform their work with efficiency and excellence but
also with utmost diligence, and faithful obedience to company policies which is in
keeping with the high standards of ethics and morality.
In the event of violation, an employee may be validly terminated from
employment on the ground that an employer cannot rationally be expected to retain
the employment of a person whose lack of morals, respect and loyalty to his
employer, regard for his employers rules and application of the dignity and
responsibility, has so plainly and completely bared.1
It is clear in the law, under Article 282 of the Labor Code:
An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a)

Serious Misconduct or wilful disobedience by the employee of the

lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his
work.

In a chain of jurisprudence, the Court has reiterated the elements of serious

misconduct or wilful disobedience. For wilful disobedience to be a just cause for
dismissal, these two elements must concur: a) the employees assailed conduct
must have been wilful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude;
b) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employee, and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge.
Naturally, sexual acts between two consenting adults belong and must be
limited to the realm of purely private relations, however, if such act transgresses
the accepted bounds of social and moral standards, the same may be considered a
valid cause of dismissal. In this case, the act was obviously acceded both by Nabil
and Daphne in a perverse and inappropriate manner and without regard to their
employers rules and regulations as contemplated in the companys Fraternization
Policy, hereby quoted pursuant to the Handbook on Employee Discipline to wit:
This policy provides guidelines and definitions to follow regarding
relationships in the workplace. Employees should avoid situations where a
conflict of interest may occur or where workplace relationships may result in
claims of favouritism or harassment.
Dating, request for dates and or personal relationships between management
and persons within their scope of influence are prohibited.
The sexual relationship between Nabil and Daphne is vehemently a
disrespect to the rules of the company to the satisfaction of the first element.
1

Salavarria vs. Letran College, G.R. No. 110396, September 25, 1998.

Moreover, as gleaned from the aforequoted rules of the company regarding

the prohibition of personal relationships, it is for the lawful purpose of avoiding
issues of conflict of interest, favouritism and harassment. It must also be
underscored that during the hiring phase, Nabil was fully informed of the nature of
their work, duties, responsibilities and all the policies and rules to which they ought
to follow but to which Nabil failed to do, thus, raising concerns and bringing
discredit to the company. Hence, the second element being satisfied.
Taken all together, the conduct of Nabil having sexual and personal
relationship with Daphne in effect opened an invitation for others to commit the
same infraction, with utter disrespect to the rules and policies of the company, and
with injury to the sensitivities of their employer and co-employees, considering also
the fact that Nabil here is a Team Leader who ought to know and observe the
highest standard of ethics and morality in the workplace.
Consequently, it is imperative that there exists a valid ground for the
dismissal of Nabil.
Whether or not there is valid ground for dismissing Abigail.
Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, wilful in
character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgement. 2
For a misconduct or improper behaviour to be a just cause for dismissal, the
following elements must be present: a) The misconduct must be serious; b) it must
relate to the performance of the employees duties showing that the employee has
become unfit to continue working for the employer; c) it must have been performed
with wrongful intent.
Clearly, the charge of grave infraction of Fatal Error Zero Tolerance against
Daphne, described in more particular terms, as her exhibition of rude, offensive,
and vulgar behaviour while at work amounts to serious misconduct in violation of a
company policy and within the terms of Article 282 of the Labor Code justifying her
dismissal. Suffice it to state that an employee may be validly dismissed for violation
of a reasonable company rule or regulation adopted for the conduct of the
companys business.3
Aside from being a violation of a company policy, the utterance of vulgar and
obscene comments is against social and moral conduct considering that the
commotion was made in the eyes of other agents of the company. To condone such
act will certainly erode the discipline that an employer would uniformly enforce so
that it can expect compliance with said rules and obligations by its employees.
Otherwise, the rule necessary and proper for the operation of its business would be
rendered ineffectual.4 An employer cannot legally be compelled to continue with the
employment of a person who admittedly was guilty of misfeasance of malfeasance
2
3

Autobus Workers Union (AWU) vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 11753, June 26, 1998.
Ibid, citing Tanala vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 116588, January 24, 1996

towards his employer, and whose continuance in the service of the latter is patently
inimical to his interests.5

Nuez vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 107574, December 28 1994, citing Solo vs. Mercantile Corporation
148 SCRA 526 (1987)
5
Ibid, citing Colgate Palmolive Phils., Inc. vs. Ople, et al. 163 SCRA 323 (1988)