LORNA DISING PUNZAL VS ETSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

LORNA DISING PUNZAL

VS

ETSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
518 SCRA 66 (2007)

No matter how much the employee dislikes the employer professionally, he cannot afford to be disrespectful.

Petitioner Lorna Dising Punzal (Punzal) had been working for respondent ETSI Technologies, Inc. (ETSI) as Department Secretary. Punzal sent an e-mail message to her officemates announcing the holding of a Halloween Party that was to be held in the office. Her immediate superior, respondent Carmelo Remudaro advised her to first secure the approval of the SVP, respondent Werner Geisert. When Geisert did not approve of the plan, Punzal then sent a second e-mail to her officemates that states ―Geisert was so unfair . . . para bang palagi siyang iniisahan sa trabaho. . . Anyway, solohin na lang niya bukas ang office.”

Punzal’s superiors required her to explain her actions which found such as unacceptable. She was then dismissed from employment due to improper conduct or act of discourtesy or disrespect and making malicious statements concerning company officer. Punzal filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal against ETSI, Geisert, and Remudaro.

The complaint was dismissed by the Labor Arbiter. On appeal, the NLRC found that while she was indeed guilty of misconduct, the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to her infraction. The Court of Appeals held that Punzal’s dismissal was in order.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a valid cause to dismiss Punzal

HELD:
A cordial or, at the very least, civil attitude, according due deference to one’s superiors, is still observed, especially among high-ranking management officers. The Court takes judicial notice of the Filipino values of pakikisama and paggalang which are not only prevalent among members of a family and community but within organizations as well, including work sites. An employee is expected to extend due respect to management, the employer being the “proverbial hen that lays the golden egg,” so to speak. An aggrieved employee who wants to unburden himself of his disappointments and frustrations in his job or relations with his immediate superior would normally approach said superior directly or otherwise ask some other officer possibly to mediate and discuss the problem with the end in view of settling their differences without causing ferocious conflicts. No matter how much the employee dislikes the employer professionally, and even if he is in a confrontational disposition, he cannot afford to be disrespectful and dare to talk with an unguarded tongue and/or with a bileful pen.

Punzal sent the e-mail message in reaction to Geisert’s decision which he had all the right to make. That it has been a tradition in ETSI to celebrate occasions such as Christmas, birthdays, Halloween, and others does not remove Geisert’s prerogative to approve or disapprove plans to hold such celebrations in office premises and during company time. Given the reasonableness of Geisert’s decision that provoked Punzal to send the second e-mail message, the observations of the Court of Appeals that “the message x x x resounds of subversion and undermines the authority and credibility of management” and that petitioner “displayed a tendency to act without management’s approval, and even against management’s will” are well taken.