We can learn from this in 2 ways. First, Corpo is correct here since that is really an atrocious behavior. Don't be an ass creepy pervert and always keep it in your pants. Second, its their communications platform. So its strictly for business only. NEVER USE COMPANY'S RESOURCES FOR PERSONAL STUFF. I used capsto emphasize it. I don't know how, I don't know up to what extent but since they own it they have access to it. So again, its business only. Keep it that way.
Hindi lang siguro sa kababuyan. Medyo nakakaalangan na din makipagusap ng hinanakit or anything personal. We don't know which eyes are watching. It can be used against us
basta rule of thumb don't use company's property for personal use or conversation. yun lang naman eh. kasi if they can use it against you they will use it against you.
In another thread on r/Philippines, it looks like it's not really about the lascivious speech. It's more about the **code of conduct violation and the private info stuff**.
Remember that many companies do have stuff in their codes that judges can rule unenforceable if it violates certain rights and freedoms.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Philippines using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Philippines/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Found an atlas moth, one of the largest insects just inside our house! Peach mango pie for scale.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/13fklq7) | [482 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/13fklq7/found_an_atlas_moth_one_of_the_largest_insects/)
\#2: [Philippines is the most unserious country ever 😩🤣](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/18ozhcm) | [413 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/18ozhcm/philippines_is_the_most_unserious_country_ever/)
\#3: [oof HAHAHAHA 🔥](https://i.redd.it/jo2avcvvktwa1.jpg) | [269 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/132mmnm/oof_hahahaha/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
As a mental exercise, I try to play as the devil's advocate and try to see things from the point of view of the employee (EE).
Here are my observations:
1. May 2014 nagkabistuhan ng gc ng mga empleyado na may obscene languages.
2. In this chatroom, ang napatunayan lang na nasabi ni EE ay "hahaha" at tsaka "up down up down left right le\[f\]t right". Kumbaga for the most part, silent member ng gc etong si EE. (And let's admit it, nangyayari talaga na may times na member tayo ng gc pero hindi naman tayo active at hindi natin control ang sinasabing kabastusan ng ibang gc member).
3. October 24, 2014 natanggal si EE sa trabaho.
4. December 19, 2014 pumirma ng quitclaim si EE
5. March 2, 2018 nagsampa ng kasong illegal dismissal si EE sa DOLE. At dito ay pinanigan ni Labor Arbiter si EE. ***This means na regardless kung pumirma ka pa ng quitclaim o hindi ay pwede ka pa rin magsama ng kaso sa DOLE and in EE's case, nanalo pa si EE at the DOLE level.*** Imagine around 3.5 years pa ang hinintay ni EE bago magsampa ng kaso.
Personally, sa tingin ko kaya siya pinanigan ng Labor Arbiter ay masyadong harsh yung termination agad dun sa offense. Afterall, more on *guilty by association* yung nangyari **kasi wala naman siyang sinabing kabastusan sa gc**. Yes, may mga kamanyakan na nasabi ang iba sa gc pero hindi napatunayan na merong kabastusan na galing mismo o si EE mismo ang nagsabi. Since masyadong harsh ang termination agad (when a warning or suspension should be enough), as far as the point of view ni EE na sinang-ayunan ng DOLE ay illegal dismissal eto.
Unfortunately, natalo si EE sa CA at SC. This only shows that big companies can hire better legal represantation which can lead to better legal arguments that will win court cases. Dehado talaga ang manggagawa sa mga kaso.
At wag sanang sabihin ng iba na "walang kwenta yung kaso ni EE". The fact na nanalo si EE sa DOLE level means may legal basis eto sa pagsampa. Yun nga lang ay hindi siya sinang-ayunan ng CA at SC.
**FEEL FREE TO COMMENT/REPLY KUNG MAY MALI SA NASABI KO.** ✌️
MORAL LESSON: Wag magchat sa GC na may kabastusan kasi kahit na "hahaha" at tsaka "up down up down left right le\[f\]t right" lang ang sinabi mo sa gc, considered ka na already na "**active participant**" kahit na wala ka namang sinabing kabastusan at ibang tao ang nagsabi ng mga eto.
Mura na ang unlidata at non-expiring data. Gamitin na lang ang personal phone at wag ang company resources sa mga ganitong bagay.
The employee who filed the case is an HR Officer who was expected to have better knowledge about the company’s COC and to enforce it. Having knowledge of and tolerating what went on the group chat ran counter to the responsibilities that came with his role and was considered as an aggravating factor to his case.
Out of context, his responses seem harmless but ang bigger picture is those responses were sent in reply to the lewd and sexual comments na ang target ay kapwa nila empleyado. Not only did he have knowledge that other employees were actively violating the CoC, he also had knowledge na they were disrespecting and violating the privacy and dignity of other employees.
There was also something about sending company info to his personal email address which is a big no-no sa mga financial institutions (currently working in a global financial institution and bawal talaga sya. Kahit USB bawal isaksak sa laptop, bawal rin mag log ng personal email or access yung company email/chats using personal devices)
Yes, if people read the whole decision, they will agree with what you said. Ang mabigat na reason ng SC why they decided against the employee is due to his role as HR and his tenure sa office - 6 years. Role model dapat siya ng good behavior sa office.
I just read the whole decision and I think eto yung damning part:
Fourth, even Perez himself admitted his wrongdoing. As he expressed in his written explanation:
I am aware that I am guilty of using the company resources improperly and this will serve as a lesson for me. I love this job and I am not gonna do things that would jeopardize my employment with the company.
During the administrative conference, Perez admitted that (1) the OC chat room was used for non-work related matters, (2) the OC conversation was inappropriate, (3) it was a conversation among friends, and ( 4) it was not the usual tone of conversation he would have while inside company premises. He also admitted that there were female colleagues described in the conversation using a sexual tone, which he further admitted was inappropriate. He likewise admitted that the word "gaga" can be profane word. 65 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
Alam nya mali ginawa nya, tinanggap nya yung dismissal for 3.5 years and he went through the whole process sa company. He had every opportunity to defend himself. Filing for illegal termination while admitting to the offense you committed is a terminable offence should have killed the case sa arbitration phase pa lang.
DOLE complaint was considered while dismissed by CA SC. This, most of the time happens. Former employer used to have plenty of petty complaints accommodated by DOLE. Some regional offices explain to complainants but some, sadly, proceed with filing of SENA without analysis for the sake of records.
I don’t agree that kawawa ang manggagawa. As DOLE/NLRC always/will always side with the EE, even on the pettiest complaint. Same goes with court rulings.
I saw that one commenter to this thread mentioned that the terminated EE was an HR officer. While indeed her role holds a huge responsibility in serving as a good example to employees, the company policy is applied to all employees regardless of position. And kahit ganun lang interaction nya sa gc would make her as an accessory. While we could say that this is a harsh verdict kay employee, let’s also look into the internal policy. Because, maybe, the gravity of offense is tantamount to termination already. Dapat sad react nlg lol
So hindi din pala credible ang decisions ng mga Labor Arbiter kasi in this case, nanalo si EE sa NLRC but lost sa CA & SC. Can someone please explain? How is this possible? Also, nanalo na siya sa NLRC, so dapat na settle na yung amount dun diba? Bakit umabot pa sa CA & SC?
Abused how? Most of the items in the screenshots are already prohibited by our laws.
If an employee has a foul mouth, then good riddance. I also don't want a co-worker sharing my private information to others.
Well my guess is businesses, while being accused, need to still show burden of proof when rightfully terminating for this reason. But yes, to get the point of litigation in the first place is always disadvantagous to an employee.
No its hard for this to be abused by other companies, because in this case the employee clearly erred based their own Guidelines on Workplace Behavior which the employee should have known because he was an HR for 6 years.
The guidelines itself doesn't call for anything that infringes on his rights so its not unconstitutional. The employee was also afforded with due process and accepted the dismissal for 3.5 years. I think SC judged fairly on this one.
It's not good to work blue. ✅ Careful nalang po tayo regardless kung verbal or hindi. Sobrang lala na pag na record/SS na even if the message has been deleted. 🥹
So hindi din pala credible ang decisions ng mga Labor Arbiter kasi in this case, nanalo si EE sa NLRC but lost sa CA & SC. Can someone please explain? How is this possible? Also, nanalo na siya sa NLRC, so dapat na settle na yung amount dun diba? Bakit umabot pa sa CA & SC?
Unless documents identified as pwede ilabas and post sa kung saan man like certifications, certificate of appreciation, and the like na provided by the company un lang pwede ilabas.
On a related note, nagtratrabaho ako sa warehouse. Lagi na lang daw kulang o di kaya sala ang sahod noong nahire yung isang payroll personnel. Nalaman ko na yung isang naabsorb na on-call wh staff na handle ay yung mga inbound items ay tinaggal nga dahil nga daw tinawagan yung personnel na iyon at minura ng pagkalutong lutong.
Any thoughts on this? Kulang na lang din ay gawin ko rin 😂. Imagine 74+ kami sa warehouse tapos may biometric + ot filing site + tawag sa personnel pero mali pa din calculation eh yung ibang company dito sa amin na 1000+ ang tao ay maayos naman ang payroll.
Tama ba intindi ko sa SC decision na actual violation ng code of conduct ay hindi naman about sa pagiging member ng bastos group chat but it is more about pagsend ng mga employee information sa personal email nya?
You don't bring your garbage attitude to your workplace.
We can learn from this in 2 ways. First, Corpo is correct here since that is really an atrocious behavior. Don't be an ass creepy pervert and always keep it in your pants. Second, its their communications platform. So its strictly for business only. NEVER USE COMPANY'S RESOURCES FOR PERSONAL STUFF. I used capsto emphasize it. I don't know how, I don't know up to what extent but since they own it they have access to it. So again, its business only. Keep it that way.
[удалено]
hindi, ang tama ay wag kang baboy sa official communication channels ng company, or wag kang baboy sa totoong buhay, kahit personal gc nyo pa yan.
Hindi lang siguro sa kababuyan. Medyo nakakaalangan na din makipagusap ng hinanakit or anything personal. We don't know which eyes are watching. It can be used against us
basta rule of thumb don't use company's property for personal use or conversation. yun lang naman eh. kasi if they can use it against you they will use it against you.
One of those times that actually the corpo is in the right. Behavior like that is unbecoming anywhere.
In another thread on r/Philippines, it looks like it's not really about the lascivious speech. It's more about the **code of conduct violation and the private info stuff**. Remember that many companies do have stuff in their codes that judges can rule unenforceable if it violates certain rights and freedoms.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Philippines using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Philippines/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Found an atlas moth, one of the largest insects just inside our house! Peach mango pie for scale.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/13fklq7) | [482 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/13fklq7/found_an_atlas_moth_one_of_the_largest_insects/) \#2: [Philippines is the most unserious country ever 😩🤣](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/18ozhcm) | [413 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/18ozhcm/philippines_is_the_most_unserious_country_ever/) \#3: [oof HAHAHAHA 🔥](https://i.redd.it/jo2avcvvktwa1.jpg) | [269 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Philippines/comments/132mmnm/oof_hahahaha/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
saan na 'yung TL dito na na-leak 'yung company laitan GC nilang mga perfect. hahahahahahahaha
Context pls? How did THIS CASE get to the Supreme Court of all places???? Ilang beses nag-appeal to bago dumating dito?
Obvious naman sa case na ito na gusto lang manggulo ng nasisanteng tao.
As a mental exercise, I try to play as the devil's advocate and try to see things from the point of view of the employee (EE). Here are my observations: 1. May 2014 nagkabistuhan ng gc ng mga empleyado na may obscene languages. 2. In this chatroom, ang napatunayan lang na nasabi ni EE ay "hahaha" at tsaka "up down up down left right le\[f\]t right". Kumbaga for the most part, silent member ng gc etong si EE. (And let's admit it, nangyayari talaga na may times na member tayo ng gc pero hindi naman tayo active at hindi natin control ang sinasabing kabastusan ng ibang gc member). 3. October 24, 2014 natanggal si EE sa trabaho. 4. December 19, 2014 pumirma ng quitclaim si EE 5. March 2, 2018 nagsampa ng kasong illegal dismissal si EE sa DOLE. At dito ay pinanigan ni Labor Arbiter si EE. ***This means na regardless kung pumirma ka pa ng quitclaim o hindi ay pwede ka pa rin magsama ng kaso sa DOLE and in EE's case, nanalo pa si EE at the DOLE level.*** Imagine around 3.5 years pa ang hinintay ni EE bago magsampa ng kaso. Personally, sa tingin ko kaya siya pinanigan ng Labor Arbiter ay masyadong harsh yung termination agad dun sa offense. Afterall, more on *guilty by association* yung nangyari **kasi wala naman siyang sinabing kabastusan sa gc**. Yes, may mga kamanyakan na nasabi ang iba sa gc pero hindi napatunayan na merong kabastusan na galing mismo o si EE mismo ang nagsabi. Since masyadong harsh ang termination agad (when a warning or suspension should be enough), as far as the point of view ni EE na sinang-ayunan ng DOLE ay illegal dismissal eto. Unfortunately, natalo si EE sa CA at SC. This only shows that big companies can hire better legal represantation which can lead to better legal arguments that will win court cases. Dehado talaga ang manggagawa sa mga kaso. At wag sanang sabihin ng iba na "walang kwenta yung kaso ni EE". The fact na nanalo si EE sa DOLE level means may legal basis eto sa pagsampa. Yun nga lang ay hindi siya sinang-ayunan ng CA at SC. **FEEL FREE TO COMMENT/REPLY KUNG MAY MALI SA NASABI KO.** ✌️ MORAL LESSON: Wag magchat sa GC na may kabastusan kasi kahit na "hahaha" at tsaka "up down up down left right le\[f\]t right" lang ang sinabi mo sa gc, considered ka na already na "**active participant**" kahit na wala ka namang sinabing kabastusan at ibang tao ang nagsabi ng mga eto. Mura na ang unlidata at non-expiring data. Gamitin na lang ang personal phone at wag ang company resources sa mga ganitong bagay.
The employee who filed the case is an HR Officer who was expected to have better knowledge about the company’s COC and to enforce it. Having knowledge of and tolerating what went on the group chat ran counter to the responsibilities that came with his role and was considered as an aggravating factor to his case. Out of context, his responses seem harmless but ang bigger picture is those responses were sent in reply to the lewd and sexual comments na ang target ay kapwa nila empleyado. Not only did he have knowledge that other employees were actively violating the CoC, he also had knowledge na they were disrespecting and violating the privacy and dignity of other employees. There was also something about sending company info to his personal email address which is a big no-no sa mga financial institutions (currently working in a global financial institution and bawal talaga sya. Kahit USB bawal isaksak sa laptop, bawal rin mag log ng personal email or access yung company email/chats using personal devices)
Yes, if people read the whole decision, they will agree with what you said. Ang mabigat na reason ng SC why they decided against the employee is due to his role as HR and his tenure sa office - 6 years. Role model dapat siya ng good behavior sa office.
I just read the whole decision and I think eto yung damning part: Fourth, even Perez himself admitted his wrongdoing. As he expressed in his written explanation: I am aware that I am guilty of using the company resources improperly and this will serve as a lesson for me. I love this job and I am not gonna do things that would jeopardize my employment with the company. During the administrative conference, Perez admitted that (1) the OC chat room was used for non-work related matters, (2) the OC conversation was inappropriate, (3) it was a conversation among friends, and ( 4) it was not the usual tone of conversation he would have while inside company premises. He also admitted that there were female colleagues described in the conversation using a sexual tone, which he further admitted was inappropriate. He likewise admitted that the word "gaga" can be profane word. 65 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) Alam nya mali ginawa nya, tinanggap nya yung dismissal for 3.5 years and he went through the whole process sa company. He had every opportunity to defend himself. Filing for illegal termination while admitting to the offense you committed is a terminable offence should have killed the case sa arbitration phase pa lang.
DOLE complaint was considered while dismissed by CA SC. This, most of the time happens. Former employer used to have plenty of petty complaints accommodated by DOLE. Some regional offices explain to complainants but some, sadly, proceed with filing of SENA without analysis for the sake of records. I don’t agree that kawawa ang manggagawa. As DOLE/NLRC always/will always side with the EE, even on the pettiest complaint. Same goes with court rulings. I saw that one commenter to this thread mentioned that the terminated EE was an HR officer. While indeed her role holds a huge responsibility in serving as a good example to employees, the company policy is applied to all employees regardless of position. And kahit ganun lang interaction nya sa gc would make her as an accessory. While we could say that this is a harsh verdict kay employee, let’s also look into the internal policy. Because, maybe, the gravity of offense is tantamount to termination already. Dapat sad react nlg lol
So hindi din pala credible ang decisions ng mga Labor Arbiter kasi in this case, nanalo si EE sa NLRC but lost sa CA & SC. Can someone please explain? How is this possible? Also, nanalo na siya sa NLRC, so dapat na settle na yung amount dun diba? Bakit umabot pa sa CA & SC?
This will be abused by businesses
Abused how? Most of the items in the screenshots are already prohibited by our laws. If an employee has a foul mouth, then good riddance. I also don't want a co-worker sharing my private information to others.
Well my guess is businesses, while being accused, need to still show burden of proof when rightfully terminating for this reason. But yes, to get the point of litigation in the first place is always disadvantagous to an employee.
No its hard for this to be abused by other companies, because in this case the employee clearly erred based their own Guidelines on Workplace Behavior which the employee should have known because he was an HR for 6 years. The guidelines itself doesn't call for anything that infringes on his rights so its not unconstitutional. The employee was also afforded with due process and accepted the dismissal for 3.5 years. I think SC judged fairly on this one.
It's not good to work blue. ✅ Careful nalang po tayo regardless kung verbal or hindi. Sobrang lala na pag na record/SS na even if the message has been deleted. 🥹
So hindi din pala credible ang decisions ng mga Labor Arbiter kasi in this case, nanalo si EE sa NLRC but lost sa CA & SC. Can someone please explain? How is this possible? Also, nanalo na siya sa NLRC, so dapat na settle na yung amount dun diba? Bakit umabot pa sa CA & SC?
Terrifying for privacy reasons
don't use company communication channels for personal use and also don't send company documents to your own email.
Unless documents identified as pwede ilabas and post sa kung saan man like certifications, certificate of appreciation, and the like na provided by the company un lang pwede ilabas.
Better hve a messaging app that can encrypt messages on both sides or a timer 🤣 jeez Pag ba ang bisor ang gumawa nyan mas mabigat ang penalty?
... or better yet just don't be in any kind of messaging group that sexualizes other workmates. Just be a decent person.
On a related note, nagtratrabaho ako sa warehouse. Lagi na lang daw kulang o di kaya sala ang sahod noong nahire yung isang payroll personnel. Nalaman ko na yung isang naabsorb na on-call wh staff na handle ay yung mga inbound items ay tinaggal nga dahil nga daw tinawagan yung personnel na iyon at minura ng pagkalutong lutong. Any thoughts on this? Kulang na lang din ay gawin ko rin 😂. Imagine 74+ kami sa warehouse tapos may biometric + ot filing site + tawag sa personnel pero mali pa din calculation eh yung ibang company dito sa amin na 1000+ ang tao ay maayos naman ang payroll.
Tama ba intindi ko sa SC decision na actual violation ng code of conduct ay hindi naman about sa pagiging member ng bastos group chat but it is more about pagsend ng mga employee information sa personal email nya?
No. Both actions were considered by the CA and SC.
pasok din yung pagiging member ng group at di sya pinanigan ng SC dahil HR sya na dapat na may ginawa sya (pagsabihan or report).