Salvador, Antonio Dominic G.

STERLING PAPER PRODUCTS ENT., INC. v. KMM-KATIPUNAN AND ESPONGA

G.R. No. 221493

August 2, 2017

FACTS:

Petitioner Sterling Paper Products (Sterling) hired private respondent Raymond Esponga (Esponga) as a machine
operator. After sometime in June 2006, workers, including Esponga, was given a 20-day suspension for allegedly
staging a “wildcat strike.” A notice was then sent to those involved stating that a repetition of the same may result
to a penalty of termination from employment. Another incident involved Esponga and his supervisor Mercy
Vinoya (Vinoya). Upon seeing Esponga taking a nap on the sheeter machine, Vinoya called his attention and
prohibited him from doing the same. After transferring to a nearby mango tree, Vinoya heard Esponga utter
words against the former. She then confronted Esponga, to which the latter replied in a loud and disrespectful
manner. Incidents following the confrontation, e.g. giving Vinoya the “dirty finger” and uttering disrespectful
statements against Vinoya, were imputed to Esponga.

Because of the said events, a Notice to Explain was sent to Esponga, requiring him to submit a written explanation
and to attend the administrative hearings on the matter. Consequently, Esponga submitted his written
explanation denying the charges against him. An amended Notice to Explain, providing the correct date of the
incident, was given to Esponga, again requiring him to submit a written explanation and to attend the
administrative hearing on the matter. However, Esponga failed to submit his written explanation and to attend
the administrative hearings. Despite several reschedules, Esponga failed to appear in the administrative hearings.
It was then found that Esponga was guilty of gross and serious misconduct gross disrespect to superior and
habitual negligence. Esponga was subsequently terminated from employment. Esponga, with KMM-Katipunan
then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practices with the Labor Arbiter (LA) against Sterling.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the conduct of Esponga amounts to serious misconduct warranting his dismissal from
employment

HELD:

Yes. The conduct of Esponga amounts to serious misconduct and consequently warrants his dismissal from
employment.

Under Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code, serious misconduct by the employee justifies the employer in terminating
his or her employment. In this case, the Court defined misconduct as “an improper or wrong conduct. It is a
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 stated that, to fall under such
category as to amount to a valid cause for dismissal from employment, the employee’s misconduct must be
serious. It is must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Further, such
misconduct must be related to the performance of the employee's duties showing him to be unfit to continue
working for the employer. The act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent. The Court
summarized the requisites for serious misconduct as a valid cause for dismissal as follows: “(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.”

First, in the case at bar, it was duly established that Esponga was guilty of such serious misconduct. The Court, in a
number of case, has consistently held that “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.”It is also settled that accusatory and inflammatory language
used by an employee towards his employer or superior can be a ground for dismissal or termination. Second,
Esponga’s conduct was related to his work as a machine operator. His conduct towards Vinoya reflected his
defiance of reasonable management directives. Finally, Esponga defied his supervisor, and uttered disrespectful
words to her, in front of his co-employees, which is manifest of Esponga’s wrongful intent of committing a serious
misconduct against his supervisor Vinoya.

Therefore, from the foregoing, the dismissal of Esponga was based on a valid cause, and as such, his termination
from employment is valid.