Work-relatedness of Termination for Inflicting Physical Violence or Fighting is Not Solely Determined by the Time and Location

Fighting within work premises which act adversely affects employer’s interests for it distracts employees, disrupts operations and creates a hostile work atmosphere. (Page 122, Guide to Valid Dismissal of Employees, 2^nd Edition, citing Solvic Industrial Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 125548, September 25, 1998)

“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. (Telecommunications Distributors Specialist, Inc., vs. Raymund Garriel, G.R. No. 174981, May 25, 2009, citing Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Bolso, G.R. No. 159701, August 17, 2007)

Easily and Professionally Draft Your Disciplinary Notices (NTE, Hearing, Dismissal) Using Atty. Villanueva’s HR Forms 2 Templates (178 Editable Forms) in Soft Copy

Usually, determination of work-relatedness of fighting in the work premises is based on time and location in relation to the incident.

However, in the 2019 case of Stanfilco – A Division of DOLE Philippines, Inc. vs. Tequillo (G.R. No. 209735, July 17, 2019) the Supreme Court held that the confrontation should be “rooted on workplace dynamics” or connected with the performance of the employees’ duties.

Stated otherwise, time and location do not, by themselves, determine whether violence should be classified as work-related. Rather, such determination will depend on the underlying cause of or motive behind said violence.

Also, in Technol Eight Philippines Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission Dennis Amular (Amular) got into a fistfight with his team leader, Rafael Mendoza (Mendoza). The fight occurred not within company premises, but at the Surf City Internet Cafe in Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Because of the incident, Amular’s employment was terminated, causing him to file a complaint for illegal dismissal before the LA. When the case eventually reached the Court, Almular’s termination was deemed valid.

Brushing aside the fact that the incident took place outside of company premises and after work hours, the Court held that the fight’s work connection rendered Almular unfit to continue his employment with the company. It was found that Almular purposefully confronted Mendoza because of the latter’s remarks about the farmer’s questionable behavior at work. Apparently, Mendoza made Almular the subject of a negative performance report. It was thus held that the assault was occasioned by Almular’s urge to get even for a perceived wrong, which constituted a valid cause that justified his termination.

In the case of Stanfilco, the act complained of, particularly the mauling of a co-worker by another, took place at the plantation and while the “Kaibigan Fellowship” was being held is of no moment. Based on Technol, the enquiry should be into the proximate cause of or the motive behind the attack. This will allow the Court to determine whether the act was related to the performance of his duties, whether it has rendered him unfit to work for Stanfilco, and whether it was performed with wrongful intent.

The work-relatedness of and wrongful intent behind the assailant’s violent conduct cannot be questioned. He himself admitted that he mauled his co-worker out of emotional disturbance, which was ultimately caused by Stanfilco’s refusal to provide the former employee with a productivity incentive. The attack was clearlly unfounded, as it remains undisputed that Stanfilco’s refusal to furnish said incentive was due to Tequillo’s failure to meet his work quotas. Worse, the victim had said or done nothing to sufficiently provoke the attack.

Therefore, it remains undisputed that Stanfilco’s refusal to furnish said incentive was due to Tequillo’s failure to meet his work quotas. Worse, the victim had said or done nothing to sufficiently provoke the attack. Therefore, while it may be true that the assailant acted out of resentment towards Stanfilco, the same resentment was essentially attributable to his own work-related neglect. It follows, then, that the attack was connected to the sub-standard performance of Tequillo ‘s duties, and that it was fundamentally rooted in his confounded notion of workplace dynamics.

Further, there exists a substantial basis to believe that said employee is capable of repeating his violent act. The attack occurred because he did not receive a productivity incentive. This shows that he may be irked without reason and that he possesses an egregious disposition that is detrimental not only to Stanfilco, but to his co–employees. Verily, to allow him to remain in Stanfilco’s employ would put his fellow farm workers at risk of physical harm every time he feels wronged.

Taken together, these show that the employee’s violent act amounted to serious misconduct. The incident disturbed the peace in the farm and breached the discipline expected by Stanfilco from its employees. That he is ill-suited to continue working is shown by his perverse attitude and by the possibility that the attack may be repeated. On the other hand, his wrongful intent is shown by the arbitrary and unfounded manner in which he attacked a co-worker. Hence, all the requisites of serious misconduct are present in the Stanfilco case.