May employees be dismissed for uttering offensive words?

The answer is yes, as a general rule. The annals of Supreme Court decisions indubitably show that we need to improve the mannerisms and spoken language at work. The place of work, whether it is an office, a factory, a construction site, a hotel lobby, a hospital or a school campus, is a haven for decent, dignified and honorable people. Vulgar words, coarse language and expressions that undermine the harmony, peace and atmosphere of decency and social graces should not be allowed. It is the right of employers to establish very clear rules, and it is the duty of employees to adhere to such protocols.

When I lived in Kuwait, Malaysia and Taiwan as labor diplomat, I instilled in the minds and hearts of OFWs that they are Filipinos, or in Tagalog, Pilipino, which means, that they are “Pili” or chosen, “Lipi” or a special race, who are “Pino” or refined in character and demeanor. They should behave in a manner that manifests the honor of our country and the dignity of our people.  Even if we are not as rich as Kuwaitis, Malaysians and Taiwanese, we know how to behave and we exude a well-civilized demeanor and behavioral patterns. I put up a Sunday school for OFWs where my wife taught pro bono the domestic helpers on how to move with grace and with decency, how to talk in public and in private, how to behave in the dining table and in restaurants, and how to use the telephone with social grace. The irony is that OWs are well-behaved when they are in foreign lands. They tend to misbehave when inside our own territory.

There are many Supreme Court decisions where employees were held to have been validly dismissed for uttering obscene, offensive, insulting and indecent and vulgar words against their own superiors, fellow employees, company customers or guests. There was even one Autobus case where a subordinate was validly dismissed for calling his supervisor “gago.” These kinds of language partake of the nature that is analogous to serious misconduct, especially if they are accompanied by contemporaneous acts of insult, antagonism and adversarial stance, aggravated by a blatant lack of remorse. The employer is armed with an inherent management prerogative to rid the company of such undisciplined personnel with languages and actuations that are coarse, disrespectful, offensive, insulting or vulgar.

In the case of The Heritage Hotel versus LS (hidden to protect her dignity), GR 217896, June 26, 2020, the Supreme Court upheld the right of management to discipline a food server who was the respondent of two customer complaints coming from two hotel guests. In the case of the Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union (GR 227070, March 9, 2020), the union president, a faculty member, was dismissed for uttering vulgar language to a student. The professor was also sued for abuse of a minor girl who was traumatized by his unbecoming language. The Supreme Court considers it misconduct or the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, willful in character.

Such an incident was taken in addition to the totality of the employee's patterns of behavior and it cannot be considered in isolation of other acts he committed. The High Court stressed: “Fitness for continued employment cannot be compartmentalized into tight little cubicles of aspects of character, conduct and demeanor, separate and independent of each other. Even if an employee had been penalized for past offenses, such records would still be considered in determining the patterns or propensities of his character.” The past records are still relevant and useful in determining whether he deserves dismissal or just a suspension. The Court declared that employers cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee and those who commit acts that are inimical to the interests of management.

Therefore, good manners and right conduct should, indeed, be reinstated in the school curriculum and the company seminars should always have a value formation component. Character is more important than competence.