Published — June 1, 2022
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
Related article: Knowing the Legal Effects of a Finding of Illegal Dismissal
There is no doubt that we are now in an era of technological advancement, and as the world strive to adapt to these changes and embark on the age of social media, Filipinos are very quick to ride to such changes. In fact, we have been once called the social media capital of the world, with every study on the matter ranking the Philippines as among the top countries spending the most hours on social media platforms (Literacy in the age of social media, Philippine Information Agency, Published on October 10, 2018, Philippine Information Agency Official Website, Last Accessed: August 05, 2019). These social media platforms are now being used by people all over the world to express their positive and negative feelings toward their everyday life experiences. Aside from this, expressions may now be showcased through posting, sharing or liking of social media posts.
However, as we continue to sail through the age of social media, we must still be careful and observe conscientiousness so as not to prejudice the rights of others. This is essentially true as many people forget to give respect to the confidentiality and privacy of rights and information when they share their thoughts and feelings through social media. In the 2014 case of Vivares et al. vs. St. Theresa’s College et al., the Supreme Court quoted in a case where the parties involved sought their rights to privacy despite sharing information or photos on Facebook:
“The individual’s desire for privacy is never absolute, since participation in society is an equally powerful desire. Thus each individual is continually engaged in a personal adjustment process in which he balances the desire for privacy with the desire for disclosure and communication of himself to others, in light of the environmental conditions and social norms set by the society in which he lives.
– Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom (1967)”
In the abovementioned case, the Supreme Court also reminded the parties of the “cyber responsibilities” of social media users and that they must be mindful enough to use “netiquettes”. This means that self-regulation on the part of social media users and internet consumers in general is the best means of avoiding privacy rights violations. As a cyberspace community member, one has to be proactive not just in protecting his or her own privacy, but also privacy of others as well.
In view of all the above, suppose an employee expressed his or her negative feelings towards his or her employer through Facebook or any social media platforms, can the employer use such action taken by his or her employee towards him or her? May it be a ground for dismissal of employment? This article seeks to provide its readers, an understanding of the policy established by Supreme Court through its decided cases in order to answer these questions.
Thus, the case of Interadent Zahntechnik Philippines, Inc. vs. Simbillo (810 SCRA 331, November 23, 2016) is enlightening. In the said case, a managerial employee expressed his feelings of disgust towards his employer through Facebook status, specifically the employee posted:
“Sana maisip din nila na ang kompanya kailangan ng mga taong di tulad nila, nagtatrabaho at di puro #$,*% ang pinaggagagawa, na kapag super demotivated na yung tao nayun baka iwan narin nya ang kawawang kumpanya na pinagpepyestahan ng mga b_i_r_. Wala na ngang credibility wala pang conscience, portraying so respectable and so religious pa. Hay naku talaga, nakakasuka, puro nalang animus lucrandi ang laman ng isip”
A cursory reading of the cited Facebook post discloses that his employer is being investigated by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Thus, as a managerial employee, the employer believed that the employee has breached the trust of his employers that justified his dismissal under Article 297 Paragraph (c) which states:
“Art. 297. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
XXX
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
XXX”
However, the Supreme Court did not agree with the employer’s justification and ruled that, for loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground, it must be based on willful breach of trust, that is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly, or inadvertently. It must be emphasized at this point that in illegal dismissal cases, the burden of proof is upon the employer to show that the employee’s dismissal was for a valid cause. The employer’s case succeeds or fails on the strength of its evidence and not on the weakness of that adduced by the employee, in keeping with the principle that the scales of justice should be tilted in favor of the latter in case of doubt in the evidence presented by them.
Moreover, a further analysis of the Facebook entry, reveals that the employee did not even mention any corporate record or confidential information but merely contains vague expression of feelings or opinion towards a person or entity, which was not even identified with certainty. In fact, the Facebook entry did not mention any specific name of employer/company/government agency or person.
Taking into consideration the ruling of the Supreme Court in the Interadent Zahntechnik Philippines, Inc. vs. Simbillo, a change in the facts of the case may have produced a different conclusion of law. For example, the employee mentioned the name of the employer and disclosed a confidential information or even uttered libelous remarks against the Company or the employer, then the circumstances may warrant the termination of the employee due to the following grounds:
- Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative (Article 297 Paragraph [c]).
- 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 representatives (Article 297 Paragraph [d], Torreda vs. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc. 515 SCRA 133, February 08, 2007).
An employer cannot be compelled to retain an employee who is guilty of acts inimical to the interests of the employer. A company has the right to dismiss employees guilty of acts of dishonesty and disloyalty, if only as a measure of self-protection [Lopez v. National Labor Relations Commission, G. R. No. 167385, 13 December 2005, 477 SCRA 596, 601-602; MGG Marine Services, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 328 Phil. 1046, 1072 (1996)]. Dismissal of an employee guilty of such a serious infraction would be reasonable (Pasamba vs. National Labor Relations Commission 524 SCRA 350, June 08, 2007).
We must always remember that the law is fair and just to both labor and management. Thus, while the Constitution accords an employee security or tenure, it abhors oppression to an employer who cannot be compelled to retain an employee whose continued employment would he patently inimical to its interest (Reyes-Rayel vs. Philippine Luen Thai Holdings, Corporation 676 SCRA 183, July 11, 2012).
OTHER SOURCES:
- Literacy in the age of social media, Philippine Information Agency, Published on October 10, 2018, Philippine Information Agency Official Website, Last Accessed: August 05, 2019
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]