Article 297 of the Labor Code enumerates the just causes for termination. It provides:

ARTICLE 297. Termination by employer. – An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

x x x

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; x x x

Misconduct is 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.

For serious misconduct to justify dismissal under the law,

(a) it must be serious,

(b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and

(c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.

In a case where the employees illegally sold in Tarlac excess broilers and crates and were involved in the anomalous transactions, the Supreme Court held that these acts constitute Serious Misconduct which would warrant the supreme penalty of dismissal. (JR Hauling Services vs. Solamo, G.R. No. 214294, September 30, 2020)

Below is a sample Notice to Explain (NTE) for serious misconduct involving theft of company property with preventive suspension.

To:             MAGNO N. AKAO       

                  Sales Representative

From:         HR

Date:          _____ September _____

Subject:     NOTICE TO EXPLAIN (NTE) WITH PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION

It appears in our records that the company had excess broilers and crates that you delivered to Tarlac on ____.

As a matter of procedure, any excess of the company products and property should be turned over accordingly within twenty-four (24) hours. However, no such turnover was made on your part.

In this regard, please explain in writing within five (5) calendar days from receipt of this notice why no disciplinary action should be taken against you for the above, the penalty of which may result in dismissal if the evidence warrants.

Likewise, you are placed on preventive suspension effective immediately considering that your acts constitute serious and imminent threat on the property of the company.

Failure on your part to submit your written explanation within the prescribed period shall be deemed as waiver of your right to due process.

For your strict compliance.

GALICHA K. AWATAN

HR Manager

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced “superiority” which is enough to dampen an employee’s spirit and her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment; it changes her life.

Justice Puno wrote in the case of Villarama vs. NLRC and Golden Donuts, Inc. that sexual harassment abounds in all sick societies. It is reprehensible enough but more so when inflicted by those with moral ascendancy over their victims.

Republic Act 7877 or the “Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995” governs the cases of sexual harassment. In section 3 of the law, it provides that:

“Section 3. Work, Education or Training- Related, Sexual Harassment Defined.—Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is commit ted by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment,

demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said act.

(a) In a work-related or employment environ- ment, sexual harassment is committed when:

(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re- employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would dis- criminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;

(2) The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or

(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.

(b) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed:

(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;

(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;

(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other bene- fits, privileges, or consideration; or

(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.

Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as herein de- fined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it would not have been commit- ted, shall also be held liable under this Act.”

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

An employee was held to be validly dismissed for the loss and unauthorized sale of the company’s electric copper wire cable upon findings that he sold the same and shared the proceeds with his three co-employees. (See Asian Terminals, Inc., Petitioner, vs. Nepthally B. Sallao, G.R. No. 166211, July 14, 2008.)

Whenever an employee steals something from the company, the employer may institute at least two actions: An administrative case threatening dismissal from service and a criminal case.

If that is the course taken by the employer, an interesting question is whether conviction of an employee in a criminal case is required for the dismissal of the employee from service on the ground of theft.

The ruling in this case is no. As discussed, the proof required in administrative proceeding is different from that of the criminal one. The former requires only substantial evidence while the latter proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the administrative case is independent of the criminal action. The erring employee may be acquitted but likewise dismissed due to substantial evidence proving the offense.

Hence, in the case where the city prosecutor dis- missed the complaint for theft due to insufficiency of evidence, the employee cannot claim that there was no valid cause for her termination on the ground of theft because there was no probable cause. The conclusion that there was a valid ground for dismissal was supported by substantial evidence consisting of affidavits of NBI’s witnesses and the company’s own investigative findings.

The employee’s acquittal in a criminal case, especially one that is grounded on the existence of reasonable doubt, will not preclude a determination in a labor case that he is guilty of acts inimical to the employer’s interests.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

“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, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.”

Misconduct involves the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.

The misconduct, to be serious within the meaning of the Labor Code must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for his separation.

In the case of Eden Llamas vs. Ocean Gateway Maritime and Management, Inc., the Court held that

deliberate misdeclaration of the accountant of the gross income of the company for the renewal of municipal license constitutes serious misconduct. In this case, the account- ant reasons that:

“I believe that I did something good for our office when our declaration of gross income submitted to City Hall for the renewal of our municipal license was lower than our actual gross income for which the office had paid a lower amount.”

However, the Court was not convinced and held further that for her act of understating the company’s profits or financial position was willful and not a mere error of judgment, committed as it was in order to “save” costs, which to her warped mind, was supposed to benefit her employer.

It was not merely a violation of company policy, but of the law itself, and put the company at risk of being made legally liable. Verily, it warrants her dismissal from employment as the company’s Accounting Manager, for as correctly ruled by the appellate court, an employer cannot be compelled to retain in its employ someone whose service is inimical to its interests.

Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, it envisages the concurrence of at least three requisites:

(1) It must be serious;

(2) Must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and

(3) Must show that the employee has become unfit

However serious such misconduct, it must, nevertheless, be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for his separation. The act complained of must be related to the performance of the employee’s duties such as would show him to be unfit to continue working for the employer.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, the act of an employee of sending a scathing e-mail in support of his superior cannot be considered as serious misconduct since it is in itself not related to his duty.

The Court said: “It can hardly be characterized as serious misconduct as to merit the penalty of dismissal. There is no showing that the sending of such e-mail message had any bearing or relation on employee’s competence and proficiency in his job. To reiterate, in order to consider it a serious misconduct that would justify dismissal under the law, the act must have been done in relation to the performance of his duties as would show him to be unfit to continue working for his employer.”

In another case, the employee threw a stapler upon the plant manager and uttered abusive language. She was charged with serious misconduct, among others. The Court did not agree that the act constituted serious misconduct because her act has no relation to her work of being a nurse. Thus:

“The Supreme Court, in a litany of decisions on serious misconduct warranting dismissal of an employee, has ruled that for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal (a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and, (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. The act of private respondent in throwing a stapler and uttering abusive language upon the per- son of the plant manager may be considered, from a layman’s perspective, as a serious misconduct. How- ever, in order to consider it a serious misconduct that would justify dismissal under the law, it must have been done in relation to the performance of her duties as would show her to be unfit to continue working for her employer. The acts complained of, under the circumstances they were done, did not in any way pertain to her duties as a nurse. Her employment identification card discloses the nature of her employment as a nurse and no other. Also, the memorandum informing her that she was being preventively suspended pending investigation of her case was addressed to her as a nurse.”

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

Read more on procedural due process discussion by Atty. Elvin:

Read more on procedural due process by Atty. Villanueva:

Twin Requirements of Notice and Hearing

Procedural Due Process for Other Types of Employment

Notice to Explain: Contents and Requirements

Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced “superiority” which is enough to dampen an employee’s spirit and her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment; it changes her life .

Justice Puno wrote in the case of Villarama vs. NLRC and Golden Donuts, Inc.  that sexual harassment abounds in all sick societies. It is reprehensible enough but more so when inflicted by those with moral ascendancy over their victims.

Republic Act 7877 or the “Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995” governs the cases of sexual harassment. In section 3 of the law, it provides that:

“Section 3. Work, Education or Training-Related, Sexual Harassment Defined.—Work, education or  training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other  person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy  over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or  requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said act.

(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when:

(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or  in the employment, re-employment or continued employment  of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges;  or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way  would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;

(2) The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or

(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.

(b) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed:

(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;

(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;

(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving  of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships,  or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits,  privileges, or consideration; or

(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.

Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under this Act.”

On April 17, 2018 Congress enacted Republic Act (R.A) 11313, otherwise known as the Safe Spaces Act.

It is based on the policy of the State to value dignity  of every human person and guarantee full respect for human rights. Also, to recognize the role of women in nation-building and ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

The State also recognizes that both men and women must have equality, security and safety not only in private, but also on the streets, public spaces, online, workplaces and educational and training institutions.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

The law also defines gender-based online sexual harassment. It refers to an online conduct targeted at a particular person that causes or likely to cause another mental, emotional or psychological distress, and fear of personal safety, sexual harassment acts including unwanted sexual remarks and comments, threats, uploading or sharing of one’s photos without consent, video and audio recordings, cyberstalking and online identity theft.

Gender-based sexual harassment in the workplace

The crime of gender-based sexual harassment in the workplace includes the following:

(a)     An act or series of acts involving any unwelcome sexual advances, requests or demand for sexual favors or any act of sexual nature, whether done verbally, or physically or through the use of technology such as text messaging or electronic mail or through any other forms of information and communication systems, that has or could have a detrimental effect on the conditions of an individual’s employment or education, job performance or opportunities;

(b)     A conduct of sexual nature and other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of a person, which is unwelcome, unreasonable, and offensive to the recipient, whether done verbally, physically or through the use of technology such as text messaging or electronic mail or through any other forms of information and communication systems;

(c)     A conduct that is unwelcome and pervasive and creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating environment for the recipient: Provided, That the crime of gender-based sexual harassment may also be committed between peers and those committed to a superior officer by a subordinate, or to a teacher by a student, or to a trainer by a trainee; and

(d)     Information and communication system refers to a system for generating, sending, receiving, storing or otherwise processing electronic data messages or electronic documents and includes the computer system or other similar devices by or in which data are recorded or stored and any procedure related to the recording or storage of electronic data messages or electronic documents.

Duties of Employers

Employers or other persons of authority, influence or moral ascendancy in a workplace shall have the duty to prevent, deter, or punish the performance of acts of gender-based sexual harassment in the workplace. Towards this end, the employer or person of authority, influence or moral ascendancy shall:

(a)     Disseminate or post in a conspicuous place a copy of R.A. 11313 to all persons in the workplace;

(b)     Provide measures to prevent gender-based sexual harassment in the workplace, such as the conduct of anti-sexual harassment seminars;

(c)     Create an independent internal mechanism or a committee on decorum and investigation to

investigate and address complaints of gender-based sexual harassment which shall:

1. Adequately represent the management, the employees from the supervisory rank, the rank-and-file employees, and the union, if any;
2. Designate a woman as its head and not less than half of its members should be women;
3. Be composed of members who should be impartial and not connected or related to the alleged perpetrator;
4. Investigate and decide on the complaints within ten (10) days or less upon receipt thereof;
5. Observe due process;
6. Protect the complaint from retaliation; and
7. Guarantee confidentiality to the greatest extent possible;

(d)     Provide and disseminate, in consultation with all persons in the workplace, a code of conduct or workplace policy which shall:

1. Expressly reiterate the prohibition on gender-based sexual harassment;
2. Describe the procedures of the internal mechanism created under Section 17 (c) of R.A. 11313; and
3. Set administrative penalties

Duties of Employees and Co-Workers

Employees and co-worker shall have the duty to:

(a)     Refrain from committing acts of gender-based sexual harassment;

(b)     Discourage the conduct of gender-based sexual harassment in the workplace;

(c)     Provide emotional or social support to fellow employees, co-workers, colleagues or peers who are victims of gender-based sexual harassment; and

(d)     Report acts of gender-based sexual harassment witnessed in the workplace.

Liability of Employers

In addition to liabilities for committing acts of gender-based sexual harassment, employers may also be held responsible for:

(a)     Non-implementation of their duties under Section 17 of R.A. 11313, as provided in the penal provisions; or

(b)     Not taking action on reported acts of gender-based sexual harassment committed in the workplace.

Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section, shall upon conviction, be penalized with a fine of not less than Five thousand pesos (PhP5,000.00) nor more than Ten thousand pesos (PhP10,000.00).

Any person who violates subsection (b) of this section, shall upon conviction, be penalized with a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (PhP10,000.00) nor more than Fifteen thousand pesos (PhP15,000.00).

Routine Inspection

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for the private sector and the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for the public sector shall conduct yearly spontaneous inspections to ensure compliance of employers and employees with their obligations under R.A. 11313.

Confidentiality

At any stage of the investigation, prosecution and trial of an offense under R.A. 11313, the rights of the victim and the accused who is a minor shall be recognized.

Restraining Order

Where appropriate, the court, even before rendering a final decision, may issue an order directing the perpetrator to stay away from the offended person at a distance specified by the court, or to stay away from the residence, school, place of employment, or any specified.

In a case involving a teacher, immorality was defined as a course of conduct which offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and elevate. Thus, the gravity and seriousness of the charges against the teacher stem from his being a married man and at the same time a teacher. Therefore, when a teacher engages in extra-marital relationship, especially when the parties are both married, such behavior amounts to immorality, justifying his termination from employment.

Even if the immoral act is committed after office hours it is a ground for dismissal and was held to be work-related matter considering that the peace of the company is thereby affected.

Other circumstances involving serious misconduct:

1. Sexual intercourse inside company premises;
2. Fighting within work premises which act adversely affects employer’s interests for it distracts employees, disrupts operations and creates a hostile work atmosphere;

However, in a case when the employee concerned did not instigate the fight and was in fact the victim who was constrained to defend himself, there is no ground for serious misconduct;

3. Assaulting a co-employee constitutes serious misconduct;
4. Uttering obscene, insulting or offensive words against a superior;

The Supreme Court ruled for the validity of dismissal on the ground of circulated letters calling the executive vice-president and general manager a “big fool,” “anti-Filipino,” and accusing him of “mismanagement, inefficiency, lack of planning and foresight, petty favoritism, dictatorial policies, one-man rule, contemptuous attitude to labor, anti-Filipino utterances and activities.”

In another case, an employee was dismissed for hurling invectives at a company physician such as “sayang ang pagka-professional mo” and “putang ina mo.”

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

An employee’s dismissal was held to be valid when he uttered towards his supervisor “gago ka” and taunting the latter by saying “bakit ano’ng gusto mo, ‘tang ina mo.”

However, if the act of disrespect was provoked by the superior or employer, there is no proper ground for disrespectful conduct towards a superior or employer.

5. The act of forging the signatures of clients to cover up employee’s negligence such that he even instructed a client to lie and “just say yes” to the questions that may be asked of her by the company;
6. Gambling within the company premises;
7. Rendering service to a business rival;
8. Selling competitor’s products;
9. By sleeping on the job and leaving his work area without prior authorization, an employee did not merely disregard company rules. He, in effect, issued an open invitation for others to violate those same company rules;
10. Deceiving a customer for personal gain;
11. Engaging in a business that competed with that of the employer’s;

    

12. Intoxication which interferes with employee’s work constitutes serious misconduct; and
13. A teacher who exerts pressure upon a colleague to change the grade of a student from failing to a passing one is serious misconduct.

The Revised Penal Code generally defines theft as an act committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent .

An employee was held to be validly dismissed for the loss and unauthorized sale of the company’s electric copper wire cable upon findings that he sold the same and shared the proceeds with his three co-employees .

Whenever an employee steals something from the company, the employer may institute at least two actions: An administrative case threatening dismissal from service and a criminal case.

If that is the course taken by the employer, an interesting question is whether conviction of an employee in a criminal case is required for the dismissal of the employee from service on the ground of theft.

The ruling in this case is no. As discussed, the proof required in administrative proceeding is different from that of the criminal one. The former requires only substantial evidence while the latter proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the administrative case is independent of the criminal action. The erring employee may be acquitted but likewise dismissed due to substantial evidence proving the offense.

Hence, in the case where the city prosecutor dismissed the complaint for theft due to insufficiency of evidence, the employee cannot claim that there was no valid cause for her termination on the ground of theft because there was no probable cause.

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

The conclusion that there was a valid ground for dismissal was supported by substantial evidence consisting of affidavits of NBI’s witnesses and the company’s own investigative findings.

The misconduct referred to must be serious in nature. The Supreme Court defines misconduct as follows:

“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, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.”

Misconduct involves the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.

The misconduct, to be serious within the meaning of the Labor Code must be of such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for his separation.

In the case of Eden Llamas vs. Ocean Gateway Mari-time and Management, Inc.,  the Court held that deliberate misdeclaration of the accountant of the gross income of the company for the renewal of municipal license constitutes serious misconduct. In this case, the accountant reasons that:

“I believe that I did something good for our of-fice when our declaration of gross income submitted to City Hall for the renewal of our municipal license was lower than our actual gross income for which the office had paid a lower amount.”

However, the Court was not convinced and held further that for her act of understating the company’s profits or financial position was willful and not a mere error of judgment, committed as it was in order to “save” costs, which to her warped mind, was supposed to benefit her employer.

It was not merely a violation of company policy, but of the law itself, and put the company at risk of being made legally liable.  Verily, it warrants her dismissal from employment as the company’s Accounting Manager, for as correctly ruled by the appellate court, an employer cannot be compelled to retain in its employ someone whose services is inimical to its interests.

Thus, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal, it envisages the concurrence of at least three requisites:

(1)    It must be serious;

(2)    Must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and

(3)    Must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer.

However serious such misconduct, it must, nevertheless, be in connection with the employee’s work to constitute just cause for his separation. The act complained of must be related to the performance of the employee’s duties such as would show him to be unfit to continue working for the employer.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, the act of an employee of sending a scathing e-mail in support of his superior cannot be considered as serious misconduct since it is in itself not related to his duty.

The Court said: “It can hardly be characterized as serious misconduct as to merit the penalty of dismissal. There is no showing that the sending of such e-mail message had any bearing or relation on employee’s competence and proficiency in his job.  To reiterate, in order to consider it a serious misconduct that would justify dismissal under the law, the act must have been done in relation to the performance of his duties as would show him to be unfit to continue working for his employer.”

In another case, the employee threw a stapler upon the plant manager and uttered abusive language. She was charged with serious misconduct, among others. The Court did not agree that the act

Learn how to Validly Terminate Employee in the Philippines with this Tutorial Video of Atty. Elvin

constituted serious misconduct because her act has no relation to her work of being a nurse.

Thus:

“The Supreme Court, in a litany of decisions on serious misconduct warranting dismissal of an employee, has ruled that for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal (a) it must be serious; (b) must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties; and, (c) must show that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer. The act of private respondent in throwing a stapler and uttering abusive language upon the person of the plant manager may be considered, from a layman’s perspective, as a serious misconduct.

However, in order to consider it a serious misconduct that would justify dismissal un-der the law, it must have been done in relation to the performance of her duties as would show her to be unfit to continue working for her employer. The acts complained of, under the circumstances they were done, did not in any way pertain to her duties as a nurse. Her employment identification card discloses the nature of her employment as a nurse and no other. Also, the memorandum informing her that she was being preventively suspended pending investigation of her case was addressed to her as a nurse.”

In the case of Molato vs. National Labor Relations Commission, the reliance of the employer upon the affidavits of its witnesses stating in general the alleged misconduct committed by the dismissed employee was held not proper. The Court held that the affiants failed to cite particular acts or circumstances when employees were disrespectful to their employer. Affiants merely alleged that employees would raise their voices and utter unpleasant remarks at their employer during their meetings without however pointing in detail when, where and how the incidents transpired.

The same is true with the affidavit of another employee who merely stated that he witnessed the arrogance, misconduct, grossly abusive language, serious disrespect and uncalled-for remarks of employees towards their employer.

For misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for dismissal the same must be related to the performance of the employee’s duties and must show that he has become unfit to continue working for the employer. The affidavits of company’s witnesses are insufficient to warrant such findings.