Samson v. NLRC [G.R. No.

121036, April 12, 2000]

FACTS:
Petitioner Samson received a letter calling the attention of petitioner’s conduct
during a Sales and Marketing Christmas gathering where Samson allegedly
made utterances of obscene, insulting and offensive words towards the SPS’s
Management Committee. Complainant was given two days to explain why
no disciplinary action should be taken against him and he was thereafter placed
on preventive suspension. Samson replied stating that such utterances were
only made in reference to a decision taken by the management committee on
the Cua Lim Case and not to any specific person. Petitioner was
thereafter informed in a letter that his employment was terminated. The Labor
Arbiter rendered a decision declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal. Both
parties appealed the decision; petitioner filed a partial appeal of the denial of his
claim for holiday pay and the cash equivalent of the rice subsidy; respondent
company sought the reversal of the labor arbiter’s ruling of illegal dismissal. The
NLRC found that dismissal was made for just cause.

ISSUE: W/N petitioner was validly dismissed.

HELD: No. Petitioner’s dismissal was brought about by utterances made

during a n informal Christmas gathering. For misconduct to warrant dismissal, it
must be in connection with the employee’s work. In this case, the alleged
misconduct was neither in connection with the employee’s work, as such
utterances of petitioner is expected in informal gatherings; also, such conduct
was not even of such serious and grave character. Furthermore, petitioner’s
outburst was in reaction to the decision of the management in a certain case
and was not intended to malign on the person of the respondent company’s
president and general manager. Respondent company itself did not seem
to consider the offense serious to warrant an immediate investigation. It is also
provided in respondent company’s rules and regulations that for conduct such
as that of the petitioner, a first offense would only warrant a “verbal reminder”
and not dismissal. Petitioner’s position does not fall within the definition of a
managerial employee; and even assuming that he is, the ground for loss of
confidence is without basis as it was not clearly established. Therefore, there
was no just cause for petitioner’s dismissal and thus was unlawful.