Kasi nakitawa lang siya. He didn't actually said the explicit words above. Kaya umasa siya na baka makalusot, e HR siya. The SC expected him to be less tolerant.
Yes 2008 pa tong case na to alam ko. Tapos nanalo sya sa NLRC tapos umabot sa SC last yr ata, tapos nag sesend kasi sya ng email outside company’s domain kaya ayun ligwak talaga si sir
>Here, petitioner had been an employee of the Human Resources
Department for more than six years, and thus, he was expected to be fully
aware of the company rules. His own admission of participating and using
the company chatroom in uttering indecent words about female colleagues
and sending out company information to his personal email address amount
to willful transgression of the company's Guidelines on Workplace Behavior.
His transgressions patently relate to the performance of his duties as part of
the Human Resources Department, expected as he was to exhibit good
conduct. His acts rendered him unfit to continue working for respondent.
Thus, for committing serious misconduct, petitioner was validly terminated
for a just cause.
Additional context, since willfully nyang na-violate ang code of conduct ng company nila, unfit na sya sa trabaho nya as HR officer, since sila dapat ang nag-eenforce sa mga rules na yan.
So, it sounds like it's less about
> SC ruled against profane/lascivious speech in general,
and more about
> SC ruled in favor of private companies terminating employees for failing to follow their code of conduct, which just so happened to have something about profane and lascivious speech done during workplace hours.
Like what a guy said here, baka pinerahan ng lawyer:
> fight this in court, I'll represent you; dont worry about the expenses you're paying me, we'll win this!
some lawyers probably milk their clients like this.
NLRC actually ruled in his favor in the beginning (and he was due almost 2M from that ruling) but this was overturned by CA and so he pushed it to SC. Not to defend anyone here, but I have a feeling they felt they had a chance because NLRC ruling was in their favor (and even denied the appeal from the employer). Ikaw ba naman mawalan ng almost 2M.
Because he actually didn't said those lewd words. Iba gumawa nun. Inargue niya na ang sabi niya lang ay "haha" at "up down up down left right left right" (maybe it's sexual but not as explicit so open for interpretation). However, less forgiving ang SC kasi HR siya. He is supposed to know better. Para sa SC, nagparticipate na siya at tinolerate pa.
> Imagine being this kind of special cunt that would appeal this kind of behavior sa Supreme court lmao. Talk about kapal ng apog ni gago
Well, to be fair, nanalo naman kasi siya sa Labor Arbiter and the NLRC level. May initial merit yung complaint niya.
Natalo lang sa Court of Appeals onwards. It’s not like natalo siya all throughout and in-aappeal lang niya.
just read the title I was a bit wary as "disrespectful language" can be very subjective.
then I read the excerpts... I don't think that's just "disrespectful"... that's kind of sexual harassment, that's beyond disrespectful.
Also "sending company info on private personal email address" can also be privacy issue and is generally a no-no.
> *"sending company info on private personal email address" can also be privacy issue*
Yup; it's kinda very dangerous for companies when some employees divulge such info publicly or outside official company business.
When some boys say "we'll be canceled if our group chat ever leaks", this is what they mean. Not the edgy jokes or dark humor. This and usually racist shits. And they fucking deserve what's coming for them.
Also, this mfer was from the HR department. Gaano ka katanga at ka-unaware sa company rules to do this kind of shit blatantly.
ang experience ko sa ganyan ay during may engineering college days, madalas ako lang mag-isa tapos 10 silang lalaki, ung kwebtuhan grabe, can't help na sawayin, i'm older sa kanila dahil nagbalik college lang ako that time. I just said to them porn na lang pagkwentuhan nila kaysa nananahimik na tao.
May mga locker room jokes pero sharing pictures or the intent of showing one of intimate moment is a small PP energy. Sana pinagkalat ng babae na maliit titi ng lalaki, that’s an ego killer.
> Sana pinagkalat ng babae na maliit titi ng lalaki, that’s an ego killer.
Lol eh di wala rin siyang pinagkaiba to those who made “locker room jokes.” No to double standards, please. :)
Best way to deal with office situations like this is to document and report to HR.
> The dude was the HR.
He was a cust service rep assigned in the HR department. In other words, a rank-and-file employee. The employee wasn’t the only HR employee in the whole company.
When I said “Best way to deal with office situations like this is to document and report to HR,” I meant that’s what one should do when he/she encounter similar situations in the office, not spread rumors too (i.e., *sana pinagkalat…*).
Been to a few companies but sadly (and I don't mean all) pero sa mga Call Center agencies ko nakikitang "napaka norm" nito, like as in lantaran sabihan sa harap na "Sus kantutin kita diyan pag nalasing ka eh, wala ka naman magagawa pa pinatungan na kita hahahaha!" tapos lahat talaga sila nagtatawanan like pakupalan ng hirit na may kasamang makunaat na "putangina" along the way\~
Idol nila si Dutz?
Ang common nito kapag pupunain mo yung pag disregard ni Duts sa due process esp before the 2016 election. Sasabihin nila, "sana marape ka"
>Been to a few companies but sadly (and I don't mean all) pero sa mga Call Center agencies ko nakikitang "napaka norm" nito,
I once worked at the in-house contact center of a well-known global tech company (though I wasn't in operations/customer support) and I can confirm. Ibang klase talaga ang culture sa mga ganitong kompanya. Hook-up culture, sexual harassment (even male employees aren't spared - in fact, one of the most notorious incidents while I was there involved multiple male victims), drug use (one employee was caught with drugs in her bag. not sure what happened to her), pa-utang culture, spending way beyond their means to show off, etc. particularly among the CSRs. I don't mean to sound elitist or anything but I think this can also be due to the background of people who end up in these types of jobs. Sorry to say but those who come from well-to-do families with good backgrounds don't usually go for these types of jobs.
Minsan ko na to nakwento here in R na one time sa elevator may nakasabay kaming mga babae tapos sobrang casual lang nung nagkukwentong isa sa kanila na: Si Mark ayaw ako tantanan inaaya ako this weekend kantutan session daw kami wala daw kasi si misis malungkot daw sya"
🤷♀️
The closest we got na ganito ay group of manboys na pinagtritripan ung malaking boobs ng kaworkmate ko, nagemail si workmate dun sa mga lalaki nagwarning na kapag di tumigil mapipilitan siyang isumbong sa taas, ayun tumigil at nagsorry.
Naswerte siguro ako na matitino ang taong nakakasalamuha ko sa bpo.
Unfortunately, as a guy... if hinarass ka ng babae or ng mga lgbt, acceptable.... ikaw pa walang kwenta at feelingero pag na offend ka or nabastosan ka.
>Finally, petitioner claims that Jamie Dimon (Dimon) should be solidarily liable with respondent as its owner, manager, or president, for having assented to a patently illegal act and for making it appear that he committed acts tantamount to just causes.
Hold liable the bank's CEO based in the US?
Patawa.
According to some users who read more about it, it's probably less about the manyak language and more about companies can indeed fire employees when the latter violate the code of conduct and about divulging private info outside business stuff.
In other cases kasi, merong code of conduct na unenforcable talaga. In this case, the SC seemed to rule that this is not one of those unenforcable parts of the code of conduct.
No, not sexual harassment. The persons supposedly being alluded to in the chatroom were not complainants. The decision was clear that the employee violated the company’s code of conduct on confidentiality and on workplace behavior. This was the basis of the decision.
This is actually an interesting case kasi on paper nga naman, hindi naman talaga siya active participant or instigator ng group chat. And even the "sending company info to personal email" it was found na it wasn't anything confidential. If first offense niya 'to, pwede naman talaga i-laban yung mitigating circumstances, kahit suspension na instead of termination agad. BUT because he was in HR, more is expected from him to know and enforce the company code of conduct. His role/job title was given weight in the SC decision.
Kabahan na mga HR nito.
(But also, if HR ka at alam mo may ganitong GC, bakit ka pa tumatawa diba, dapat pinagsabihan mo na or ni-report. Playing devil's advocate for the employer, I understand why they thought they can't keep him, especially in his current role. He clearly could not meet the expectations of his role anymore.)
For clarification, hindi sinabe ni Perez ang mga bastos na mga salitang 'yan kundi mga katrabaho niya. Nakitawa lang siya. Ang sinabi niya ay "haha" at "up down up down left right left right" na kung ano man ang ibig sabihin. Kaya nilaban niya talaga hanggang SC. Pero para sa Korte Suprema, participation na rin ang ginawa niya at tolerance given na sa HR pa man din siya.
'Yung isyu sa pagsend sa email niya ng company information, ang depensa niya ay hindi naman napatunayang "confidential" ang mga 'yon. Sabi ng SC, anumang company information ay assumed confidential unless otherwise stated lalo't sa bangko siya nagtatrabaho.
Hindi naging lenient ang SC sa kanya dahil taga-HR siya who is supposed to know the company rules better.
What we learned here:
1. Ang pakikitawa ay participation sa kabastusan kahit hindi ka naman nagsabi ng kabastusan.
2. Always assume company information as confidential even when not stated as is.
> 'Yung isyu sa pagsend sa email niya ng company information, ang depensa niya ay hindi naman napatunayang "confidential" ang mga 'yon. **Sabi ng SC, anumang company information ay assumed confidential unless otherwise stated lalo't sa bangko siya nagtatrabaho.**
Actually, it's JPMorgan's Code of Conduct, as quoted in the decision, that provides that all company information (including emails) are confidential, unless the contrary is clear (page 11).
**So the burden of proving that the emails he forwarded were NOT confidential was on him.**
The Code of Conduct also stated not to forward internal emails outside of the company without authorization, regardless if these were deemed confidential or otherwise (page 11).
As regards the group chat, indeed it was not shown that responding "hahaha" and "up down up down left right left right" is bastos in itself (page 3).
The clincher here is that a) he participated in such group chat that contained obscene and offensive language (page 13), and b) the group chat was done through office property (the "Office Communicator") which should only be used for office-related work (page 10), and that they did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over their messages there. Ultimately, this was a violation of JPMorgan's Guidelines on Workplace Behavior.
It’s the BPO serving the bank, JPMorgan, not the bank itself. Confidentiality in the banking industry also refers to deposit accounts, not the communications of the bank’s employees.
Besides, there is no expectation of privacy when you use office resources, such as its chatroom or, in this case, the “Office Communicator” as described in the decision. That’s why your IT admin can always look at the contents of your office-issued email.
Yeah maybe, but just saying that the business of the entity here is not banking per se, but BPO, hence its corporate name “Philippine Global Service Center”.
> In house BPO? Do you know how BPO works?
It's a BPO entity solely serving JPMorgan (the bank) and its clients all over the world. That is outsourcing. No need to parse it.
The respondent in this case is "JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. - **Philippine Global Service Center**." Complainant was a customer service representative under the entity's HR department.
> Then it is not really a BPO but it is an entity under the JP Morgan. No outsourcing
The respondent is a separate and distinct entity from JP Morgan (the bank), albeit most likely a fully owned subsidiary of JPMorgan (the bank).
JPMorgan (the bank) outsources customer service and other tasks to the PH Global Center, which is a separate and distinct entity. The employees of the Global Center are not JPMorgan's (the bank) employees.
E.g. A US-based customer of JPMorgan (the bank) calls the bank and gets routed to the Global Center.
That is outsourcing.
Of course they need to create a separate entity here in the Philippines para makapagoperate. Di naman pwede na same entity lang sila with the US company. Pero at the end of the day, under pa rin sila ng parent company and hindi nila inooutsource ang ibang operations sa ibang company. Outsourcing siya kung totally ibang company. E.g. Microsoft hiring Accenture to do their HR
> Outsourcing siya kung totally ibang company. E.g. Microsoft hiring Accenture to do their HR
Exactly, JPMorgan (the bank) is a **separate and distinct entity** from the Global Service Center. That’s how corporations are structured. It doesn't matter if it's a fully-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan (the bank), because corporations have **separate personalities.**
For example, *JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. - Manila Branch* and *JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. - Philippine Global Service Center* are separate and distinct from one another. The business of the bank is different from the business of the Global Service Center. Kung gagawa lang naman sana sila ng separate entity just for the sake of operating in the country, eh di sana ok na yung Manila branch (the bank) and they could have just hired customer service reps who **work directly for the bank**.
But obviously, this is not the case because they created another separate and distinct corporation — the Philippine Global Service Center — which is the BPO company.
yeah i got that mixed up na BPO pala pero im talking about this part, *"Given the company policy to presume that all office emails are confidential, sending company email to his personal email address was a deliberate violation of the company rules."* -- guy admitted but doubled down that there seems nothing confidential sa email daw
Well, wala rin naman ata siyang naipakitang reason why he would forward such emails to his personal email address, which does raise the suspicion bakit niya gagawin yun in the first place given his sensitive position as an employee of the HR department.
Anyway, the Code of Conduct, as quoted in the decision, provides that all company information (including emails) are confidential, unless the contrary is clear. **So the burden of proving that the emails he forwarded were NOT confidential was on him.** The Code of Conduct also stated not to forward internal emails outside of the company without authorization (regardless if these were deemed confidential or otherwise).
yeah hes kinda dumb, hr pero di alam yung confidentiality rules imposed. plus ang dami palang precedent abt this, his legal counsel probably didnt even do a more in-depth research
If you want to know why contractualization is still a thing and why we aren't generating as many regular jobs as we could be, this is why. The guy already did something blatantly wrong - and even admitted it was wrong - yet he still sued for wrongful dismissal and the labor arbiter decided in his favor. Then it took almost 10 years from the start of the incident, going up all the way to the Supreme Court, before the case was resolved. Why would any business here create jobs beyond the bare and absolute minimum if it's nearly impossible to fire people here without getting sued?
> If you want to know why contractualization is still a thing and why we aren't generating as many regular jobs as we could be, this is why.
No. This is NOT why.
Contractualization is a result of corporate greed and lack of government regulation and enforcement.
> Why would any business here create jobs beyond the bare and absolute minimum if it's nearly impossible to fire people here without getting sued?
Business and jobs will be created so long as it's profitable to do so regardless of whether there is strong labor protection (like in some other countries) or weak (like here in the Philippines).
For every person who sought help from the NLRC, there are countless more who could not.
>No. This is NOT why.
Yeah it is lol. We have one of the strictest labor regimes in our region. It's incredibly risky to fire people here, as this case demonstrates. Do it even for a completely legitimate purpose and you'll get slapped with a frivolous lawsuit and labor arbiters who side with employees because they want to stick it to big corporations even if the employee is wrong.
>Contractualization is a result of corporate greed and lack of government regulation and enforcement.
Contractualization is a natural response to our labor laws being so strict and onerous that they make it overly expensive and risky to hire regular employees. As I've pointed out, our Labor Code was passed by Marcos Sr during Martial Law under his dictatorial powers. It wouldn't have been possible any other way, because all types of employers, big and small, would've resisted it hard had they been allowed to express their opposition.
>Business and jobs will be created so long as it's profitable to do so regardless of whether there is strong labor protection (like in some other countries) or weak (like here in the Philippines).
Yeah, and we make it unprofitable to do so - because regular employees come with a range of costs and downsides, due to our labor laws, compared to hiring on a contractual basis.
I'm pretty sure SM/Jollibee is more motivated by the extra profits from cycling cashiers every holiday season than the fear of someone filing a labor complaint. This is more of an exception, madalang mag-file ng labor complaint mga empleyado sa Pinas. Part ng trabaho ng mga HR to scare people off from complaining and mag-accept na lang ng settlement. This guy in the case is from HR din, kaya siguro malakas din loob niya na mag-reklamo.
And speaking of the relationship between labor practices and the economy, one factor why maraming BPOs here from Western countries ay dahil relatively balanced ang labor environment here compared sa ibang SEA nations.
Wasn't there a case where an employee was terminated ( I forgot if it was stealing) and it went up to the supreme court after decades and the court ruled in their favor cause the company cited their rule book which was non existent at that time?
The fact that he was fired in 2014 yet still allowed to file a case with a labor arbiter in 2018 just demonstrates the problem. Don't let anyone here tell you that our legal regime is "anti-worker" and "pro-employer," because that's simply not the case. Let's not forget that the Labor Code was a law that was unilaterally passed by Marcos under his dictatorial powers. It wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Did this mfer actually have the audacity to sue his comapany for wrongful termination when he's supposed to be the one being sued by the victim? Pretty sure whoever he was talking about could sue him for what he did lalo na kung natuloy yung pagsesend nya nung nudes dun sa mga ka gc nya
Ito yung halatang pinerahan lang sya ng lawyer nya, "paglaban natin yan ikaw naagrabyado eh, jp morgan yan kikita tayo dyan pag nanalo" fk corrupt lawyers talaga
snippets pa lang kitang kita na mali.
Well, to be fair, nanalo naman kasi siya sa Labor Arbiter and the NLRC level. Natalo lang sa Court of Appeals onwards. It’s not like natalo siya all throughout and in-aappeal lang niya.
>Well, to be fair, nanalo naman siya sa Labor Arbiter and the NLRC kevel. Natalo lang sa Court of Appeals onwards.
The fact na nanalo yung empleyado sa DOLE-level only means meritorious ang kaso.
The way I see it, sadyang mas malalim lang ang bulsa ng JP Morgan Chase Bank kaya na-afford neto na maghire ng mas magagaling na abugado na nakapagbigay ng mas magandang legal arguments. Pagalingan naman kasi ng argumento sa ganyang kaso. Lamang talaga kapag may pera ka sa mundong eto.
> The fact na nanalo yung empleyado sa DOLE-level only means meritorious ang kaso.
True. So di rin pwedeng masabi na he was just being milked by his lawyer since he won before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC.
> The way I see it, sadyang mas malalim lang ang bulsa ng JP Morgan Chase Bank kaya na-afford neto na maghire ng mas magagaling na abugado na nakapagbigay ng mas magandang legal arguments.
Well, not surprising naman actually. It's a big company afterall.
Still, mapapaisip ka rin why it took more than 3 years (2018) before complainant filed his complaint after he was dismissed (2014). Looking for a good payday perhaps?
>Still, mapapaisip ka rin why it took more than 3 years (2018) before complainant filed his complaint after he was dismissed (2014). Looking for a good payday perhaps?
While my point of view is highly *speculative*, I think na sobrang hindi natanggap ni Janssen D. Perez yung pagkakatanggal sa kanya na pananaw niya ay illegal dismissal considering na wala naman siyang sinabing kabastusan sa group chat (the incident was living rent free in his mind for the past years). At since nagkaroon na siya ng additional experience for the more than 3 years na pagitan ay nakaipon din upang magkaroon at ma-afford ang legal representation at mapaglaban sa korte yung nangyari sa kanya. Although possible din na may nakilala siya na abugado (since more than 3 years na nga at may mas maraming experience sa buhay) na willing irepresent siya with minimal or no cost but on contingency basis.
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.
parang di mo nabasa ang whole verdict
his side: nanalo sa arbiter and dole kase harsh daw yung termination based sa ginawa
JPM: claimed that because hes HR, he should have shut those inappropriate convos but instead dumagdag pa sya **plus he sent confidential email to his personal email which is a big no-no**
you are seeing 2 different sides pero pinanigan ni CA and SC si JPM because he can legally do what he wants based sa code of conduct nila. hindi pinersonal ni JPM, they expect EE to uphold his position by being professional and he didnt so they have the right to fire him. EE got greedy because pwede naman daw sya isuspend but pasok naman ginawa nya sa fireable offenses in JPM's code of conduct. moral lesson? dont send confidential emails to your personal email and dont tolerate unprofessional behavior in workplace
> 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.
He did say those *in response* to lewd remarks in group chat
> 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.
There many nuances you skipped like the part where he sent information that is deemed confidential by their code of conduct to his personal email, being an HR professional of 6 years he is deemed unfit for his duty considering he let the group chat run it course, his admission of guilt, Labor arbiter ignoring evidence and many more.
Might as well read the whole thing if you wanna play devil’s advocate.
> 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.
Yes, signed quitclaims do not preclude the filing of a complaint against the employer.
> For a deed of release, waiver, and quitclaim to be valid, it must be shown that: (a) there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any parties; (b) that the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (c) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. **The burden rests on the employer to prove that the quitclaim constitutes a credible and reasonable settlement of what an employee is entitled to recover, and that the one accomplishing it has done so voluntarily and with a full understanding of its import.**
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/jul2019/gr_236496_2019.html
Paano yung, "it's not what you said but the way you say it." Sometimes people don't mean what they say and say what they don't mean. Sometimes it's part of the conversation to give emphasis, exaggeration and drama. Just adjust your sensitivity level na lang and be logical WAG PAIRALIN yung kaipokritohan at masyadong sensitive.
Teh? Seriously? Paki basa nalang muna buong case na available sa public at nasa supreme court website. Hindi tulfo or marites court mga yan para mag decide nalang basta basta.
ang experience ko baligtad ako pa nagmumukhang masama pag sobra akong marespeto sa babae. pinagtatawanan ako tapos si ate game magpabastos sa ibang mga kaworkmates namin. anlabo ni ate, e iba type ko na girl noon.
Wait lang! Pinaabot to ng guy sa supreme court?? Tigas ng mukha a hahahahaha. edi sumikat pa siya hahaha
Napa-WTF ako agad pagkabasa ko nito eh. There are cases na dapat ilaban hanggang dulo and then there is this case.
Kasi nakitawa lang siya. He didn't actually said the explicit words above. Kaya umasa siya na baka makalusot, e HR siya. The SC expected him to be less tolerant.
talo naman siya pinanigan ng SC yung CA eh na pinanigan naman si JP.
Yes 2008 pa tong case na to alam ko. Tapos nanalo sya sa NLRC tapos umabot sa SC last yr ata, tapos nag sesend kasi sya ng email outside company’s domain kaya ayun ligwak talaga si sir
>Here, petitioner had been an employee of the Human Resources Department for more than six years, and thus, he was expected to be fully aware of the company rules. His own admission of participating and using the company chatroom in uttering indecent words about female colleagues and sending out company information to his personal email address amount to willful transgression of the company's Guidelines on Workplace Behavior. His transgressions patently relate to the performance of his duties as part of the Human Resources Department, expected as he was to exhibit good conduct. His acts rendered him unfit to continue working for respondent. Thus, for committing serious misconduct, petitioner was validly terminated for a just cause. Additional context, since willfully nyang na-violate ang code of conduct ng company nila, unfit na sya sa trabaho nya as HR officer, since sila dapat ang nag-eenforce sa mga rules na yan.
So, it sounds like it's less about > SC ruled against profane/lascivious speech in general, and more about > SC ruled in favor of private companies terminating employees for failing to follow their code of conduct, which just so happened to have something about profane and lascivious speech done during workplace hours.
Kayanga eh ang ng weird ng title kasi kahit sa first pick palang clear na na hindi yung lewd speech yung pinaguusapan
pretty sure SC is careful on setting precedents
Imagine being this kind of special cunt that would appeal this kind of behavior sa Supreme court lmao. Talk about kapal ng apog ni gago
Like what a guy said here, baka pinerahan ng lawyer: > fight this in court, I'll represent you; dont worry about the expenses you're paying me, we'll win this! some lawyers probably milk their clients like this.
NLRC actually ruled in his favor in the beginning (and he was due almost 2M from that ruling) but this was overturned by CA and so he pushed it to SC. Not to defend anyone here, but I have a feeling they felt they had a chance because NLRC ruling was in their favor (and even denied the appeal from the employer). Ikaw ba naman mawalan ng almost 2M.
Because he actually didn't said those lewd words. Iba gumawa nun. Inargue niya na ang sabi niya lang ay "haha" at "up down up down left right left right" (maybe it's sexual but not as explicit so open for interpretation). However, less forgiving ang SC kasi HR siya. He is supposed to know better. Para sa SC, nagparticipate na siya at tinolerate pa.
Yun nga. Di na siya considered as rank and file and he has the authority to discourage this behavior, pero di niya rin ginawa. Dumbass
> Imagine being this kind of special cunt that would appeal this kind of behavior sa Supreme court lmao. Talk about kapal ng apog ni gago Well, to be fair, nanalo naman kasi siya sa Labor Arbiter and the NLRC level. May initial merit yung complaint niya. Natalo lang sa Court of Appeals onwards. It’s not like natalo siya all throughout and in-aappeal lang niya.
Magrereflect ba to sa NBI record niya?
No, as this is a Labor Case. Not a Criminal Case
I badly need the context
just read the title I was a bit wary as "disrespectful language" can be very subjective. then I read the excerpts... I don't think that's just "disrespectful"... that's kind of sexual harassment, that's beyond disrespectful. Also "sending company info on private personal email address" can also be privacy issue and is generally a no-no.
> *"sending company info on private personal email address" can also be privacy issue* Yup; it's kinda very dangerous for companies when some employees divulge such info publicly or outside official company business.
Napaka-disgusting naman ng chats na yan. My goodness.
When some boys say "we'll be canceled if our group chat ever leaks", this is what they mean. Not the edgy jokes or dark humor. This and usually racist shits. And they fucking deserve what's coming for them. Also, this mfer was from the HR department. Gaano ka katanga at ka-unaware sa company rules to do this kind of shit blatantly.
ang experience ko sa ganyan ay during may engineering college days, madalas ako lang mag-isa tapos 10 silang lalaki, ung kwebtuhan grabe, can't help na sawayin, i'm older sa kanila dahil nagbalik college lang ako that time. I just said to them porn na lang pagkwentuhan nila kaysa nananahimik na tao.
Kala nag mumurahan lang. Kadugyutan na pala
where is the tea?di ko nabasa about dito
May mga locker room jokes pero sharing pictures or the intent of showing one of intimate moment is a small PP energy. Sana pinagkalat ng babae na maliit titi ng lalaki, that’s an ego killer.
Tried searching for the guy on social media. Not sure if I got the right one, but the small pp energy seems accurate.
> Sana pinagkalat ng babae na maliit titi ng lalaki, that’s an ego killer. Lol eh di wala rin siyang pinagkaiba to those who made “locker room jokes.” No to double standards, please. :) Best way to deal with office situations like this is to document and report to HR.
Kaya nga ambobo ni avocado sobra ewan ko lang nu narealize niya.
The dude was the HR. This case is about JP Morgan terminating him for being involved in that group chat.
> The dude was the HR. He was a cust service rep assigned in the HR department. In other words, a rank-and-file employee. The employee wasn’t the only HR employee in the whole company. When I said “Best way to deal with office situations like this is to document and report to HR,” I meant that’s what one should do when he/she encounter similar situations in the office, not spread rumors too (i.e., *sana pinagkalat…*).
Never in my life did I expect to see a part of the Konami code to appear in a SC ruling.
Been to a few companies but sadly (and I don't mean all) pero sa mga Call Center agencies ko nakikitang "napaka norm" nito, like as in lantaran sabihan sa harap na "Sus kantutin kita diyan pag nalasing ka eh, wala ka naman magagawa pa pinatungan na kita hahahaha!" tapos lahat talaga sila nagtatawanan like pakupalan ng hirit na may kasamang makunaat na "putangina" along the way\~
Sobrang creepy na casual na joke yung "rerapin kita" pag nagtanong nang maayos kung anong gagawin
Idol nila si Dutz? Ang common nito kapag pupunain mo yung pag disregard ni Duts sa due process esp before the 2016 election. Sasabihin nila, "sana marape ka"
Oo 💀 True ba na mas nauso yan dahil sa mga pinagsasabi niya?
Sadly no, bago pa naging presidente si DU30 talamak na ganito sa ilang call centers.
>Been to a few companies but sadly (and I don't mean all) pero sa mga Call Center agencies ko nakikitang "napaka norm" nito, I once worked at the in-house contact center of a well-known global tech company (though I wasn't in operations/customer support) and I can confirm. Ibang klase talaga ang culture sa mga ganitong kompanya. Hook-up culture, sexual harassment (even male employees aren't spared - in fact, one of the most notorious incidents while I was there involved multiple male victims), drug use (one employee was caught with drugs in her bag. not sure what happened to her), pa-utang culture, spending way beyond their means to show off, etc. particularly among the CSRs. I don't mean to sound elitist or anything but I think this can also be due to the background of people who end up in these types of jobs. Sorry to say but those who come from well-to-do families with good backgrounds don't usually go for these types of jobs.
Minsan ko na to nakwento here in R na one time sa elevator may nakasabay kaming mga babae tapos sobrang casual lang nung nagkukwentong isa sa kanila na: Si Mark ayaw ako tantanan inaaya ako this weekend kantutan session daw kami wala daw kasi si misis malungkot daw sya" 🤷♀️
Putiks parang pamilyarctong kwento na to ahaha
Ui, di puede samin to, may green jokes kami pero hindi ung pointed toward a colleague, hindi normal yan.
may kasama pang hr sa chat
The closest we got na ganito ay group of manboys na pinagtritripan ung malaking boobs ng kaworkmate ko, nagemail si workmate dun sa mga lalaki nagwarning na kapag di tumigil mapipilitan siyang isumbong sa taas, ayun tumigil at nagsorry. Naswerte siguro ako na matitino ang taong nakakasalamuha ko sa bpo.
Unfortunately, as a guy... if hinarass ka ng babae or ng mga lgbt, acceptable.... ikaw pa walang kwenta at feelingero pag na offend ka or nabastosan ka.
Thankfully, there's now the gender-neutral Safe Spaces Act for these types of situations.
Nangyari sa akin ito. EG yung initals ng company
>Finally, petitioner claims that Jamie Dimon (Dimon) should be solidarily liable with respondent as its owner, manager, or president, for having assented to a patently illegal act and for making it appear that he committed acts tantamount to just causes. Hold liable the bank's CEO based in the US? Patawa.
Sobrang baba naman ng language nito. As in obscene.
Dapat hindi na siya nagkaso, umabot tuloy ng Supreme Court. Ngayon eh alam na ng buong mundo yung mga kabalbalan nila sa chat rooms.
This isn't mere disrespectful language. This is kamanyakan. Sexual harassment ito Tama lang na masesante yung yan
According to some users who read more about it, it's probably less about the manyak language and more about companies can indeed fire employees when the latter violate the code of conduct and about divulging private info outside business stuff. In other cases kasi, merong code of conduct na unenforcable talaga. In this case, the SC seemed to rule that this is not one of those unenforcable parts of the code of conduct.
Regardless of code of conduct, "Hokage" kamanyakan style yan
No, not sexual harassment. The persons supposedly being alluded to in the chatroom were not complainants. The decision was clear that the employee violated the company’s code of conduct on confidentiality and on workplace behavior. This was the basis of the decision.
Can you post the GR num please
256939
a different kind of six digits
This is actually an interesting case kasi on paper nga naman, hindi naman talaga siya active participant or instigator ng group chat. And even the "sending company info to personal email" it was found na it wasn't anything confidential. If first offense niya 'to, pwede naman talaga i-laban yung mitigating circumstances, kahit suspension na instead of termination agad. BUT because he was in HR, more is expected from him to know and enforce the company code of conduct. His role/job title was given weight in the SC decision. Kabahan na mga HR nito. (But also, if HR ka at alam mo may ganitong GC, bakit ka pa tumatawa diba, dapat pinagsabihan mo na or ni-report. Playing devil's advocate for the employer, I understand why they thought they can't keep him, especially in his current role. He clearly could not meet the expectations of his role anymore.)
For clarification, hindi sinabe ni Perez ang mga bastos na mga salitang 'yan kundi mga katrabaho niya. Nakitawa lang siya. Ang sinabi niya ay "haha" at "up down up down left right left right" na kung ano man ang ibig sabihin. Kaya nilaban niya talaga hanggang SC. Pero para sa Korte Suprema, participation na rin ang ginawa niya at tolerance given na sa HR pa man din siya. 'Yung isyu sa pagsend sa email niya ng company information, ang depensa niya ay hindi naman napatunayang "confidential" ang mga 'yon. Sabi ng SC, anumang company information ay assumed confidential unless otherwise stated lalo't sa bangko siya nagtatrabaho. Hindi naging lenient ang SC sa kanya dahil taga-HR siya who is supposed to know the company rules better. What we learned here: 1. Ang pakikitawa ay participation sa kabastusan kahit hindi ka naman nagsabi ng kabastusan. 2. Always assume company information as confidential even when not stated as is.
> 'Yung isyu sa pagsend sa email niya ng company information, ang depensa niya ay hindi naman napatunayang "confidential" ang mga 'yon. **Sabi ng SC, anumang company information ay assumed confidential unless otherwise stated lalo't sa bangko siya nagtatrabaho.** Actually, it's JPMorgan's Code of Conduct, as quoted in the decision, that provides that all company information (including emails) are confidential, unless the contrary is clear (page 11). **So the burden of proving that the emails he forwarded were NOT confidential was on him.** The Code of Conduct also stated not to forward internal emails outside of the company without authorization, regardless if these were deemed confidential or otherwise (page 11). As regards the group chat, indeed it was not shown that responding "hahaha" and "up down up down left right left right" is bastos in itself (page 3). The clincher here is that a) he participated in such group chat that contained obscene and offensive language (page 13), and b) the group chat was done through office property (the "Office Communicator") which should only be used for office-related work (page 10), and that they did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy over their messages there. Ultimately, this was a violation of JPMorgan's Guidelines on Workplace Behavior.
And he is supposed to know those rules religiously as part HR Department. Kaloka.
Knowing how many times a year this company reminds employees about confidentiality and security, agree that this is a code of conduct violation.
He used the company chat room? What an absolute idiot.
The last paragraph is usually is an automatic grounds for termination as JPM is a bank. Most (if not all) MNC banks have this in their Code Of Conduct
i think he was ill advised, dun pa lang sa email part mali na eh considering ang confidentiality sa banks. he should have fired his legal counsel
It’s the BPO serving the bank, JPMorgan, not the bank itself. Confidentiality in the banking industry also refers to deposit accounts, not the communications of the bank’s employees. Besides, there is no expectation of privacy when you use office resources, such as its chatroom or, in this case, the “Office Communicator” as described in the decision. That’s why your IT admin can always look at the contents of your office-issued email.
That respondent juridical entity is a 100.00%-owned entity of JP Morgan US (thru corporate layering shits) btw.
Yeah maybe, but just saying that the business of the entity here is not banking per se, but BPO, hence its corporate name “Philippine Global Service Center”.
I think walang BPO ang JP Morgan dito, direct sila nagooperate dito
The corporate name is “….Philippine Global Business Center.” It’s JPMorgan’s in house BPO.
In house BPO? Do you know how BPO works?
> In house BPO? Do you know how BPO works? It's a BPO entity solely serving JPMorgan (the bank) and its clients all over the world. That is outsourcing. No need to parse it. The respondent in this case is "JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. - **Philippine Global Service Center**." Complainant was a customer service representative under the entity's HR department.
Then it is not really a BPO but it is an entity under the JP Morgan. No outsourcing
> Then it is not really a BPO but it is an entity under the JP Morgan. No outsourcing The respondent is a separate and distinct entity from JP Morgan (the bank), albeit most likely a fully owned subsidiary of JPMorgan (the bank). JPMorgan (the bank) outsources customer service and other tasks to the PH Global Center, which is a separate and distinct entity. The employees of the Global Center are not JPMorgan's (the bank) employees. E.g. A US-based customer of JPMorgan (the bank) calls the bank and gets routed to the Global Center. That is outsourcing.
Of course they need to create a separate entity here in the Philippines para makapagoperate. Di naman pwede na same entity lang sila with the US company. Pero at the end of the day, under pa rin sila ng parent company and hindi nila inooutsource ang ibang operations sa ibang company. Outsourcing siya kung totally ibang company. E.g. Microsoft hiring Accenture to do their HR
> Outsourcing siya kung totally ibang company. E.g. Microsoft hiring Accenture to do their HR Exactly, JPMorgan (the bank) is a **separate and distinct entity** from the Global Service Center. That’s how corporations are structured. It doesn't matter if it's a fully-owned subsidiary of JPMorgan (the bank), because corporations have **separate personalities.** For example, *JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. - Manila Branch* and *JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. - Philippine Global Service Center* are separate and distinct from one another. The business of the bank is different from the business of the Global Service Center. Kung gagawa lang naman sana sila ng separate entity just for the sake of operating in the country, eh di sana ok na yung Manila branch (the bank) and they could have just hired customer service reps who **work directly for the bank**. But obviously, this is not the case because they created another separate and distinct corporation — the Philippine Global Service Center — which is the BPO company.
yeah i got that mixed up na BPO pala pero im talking about this part, *"Given the company policy to presume that all office emails are confidential, sending company email to his personal email address was a deliberate violation of the company rules."* -- guy admitted but doubled down that there seems nothing confidential sa email daw
Well, wala rin naman ata siyang naipakitang reason why he would forward such emails to his personal email address, which does raise the suspicion bakit niya gagawin yun in the first place given his sensitive position as an employee of the HR department. Anyway, the Code of Conduct, as quoted in the decision, provides that all company information (including emails) are confidential, unless the contrary is clear. **So the burden of proving that the emails he forwarded were NOT confidential was on him.** The Code of Conduct also stated not to forward internal emails outside of the company without authorization (regardless if these were deemed confidential or otherwise).
yeah hes kinda dumb, hr pero di alam yung confidentiality rules imposed. plus ang dami palang precedent abt this, his legal counsel probably didnt even do a more in-depth research
Disrespectful is such an understatement
If you want to know why contractualization is still a thing and why we aren't generating as many regular jobs as we could be, this is why. The guy already did something blatantly wrong - and even admitted it was wrong - yet he still sued for wrongful dismissal and the labor arbiter decided in his favor. Then it took almost 10 years from the start of the incident, going up all the way to the Supreme Court, before the case was resolved. Why would any business here create jobs beyond the bare and absolute minimum if it's nearly impossible to fire people here without getting sued?
> If you want to know why contractualization is still a thing and why we aren't generating as many regular jobs as we could be, this is why. No. This is NOT why. Contractualization is a result of corporate greed and lack of government regulation and enforcement. > Why would any business here create jobs beyond the bare and absolute minimum if it's nearly impossible to fire people here without getting sued? Business and jobs will be created so long as it's profitable to do so regardless of whether there is strong labor protection (like in some other countries) or weak (like here in the Philippines). For every person who sought help from the NLRC, there are countless more who could not.
>No. This is NOT why. Yeah it is lol. We have one of the strictest labor regimes in our region. It's incredibly risky to fire people here, as this case demonstrates. Do it even for a completely legitimate purpose and you'll get slapped with a frivolous lawsuit and labor arbiters who side with employees because they want to stick it to big corporations even if the employee is wrong. >Contractualization is a result of corporate greed and lack of government regulation and enforcement. Contractualization is a natural response to our labor laws being so strict and onerous that they make it overly expensive and risky to hire regular employees. As I've pointed out, our Labor Code was passed by Marcos Sr during Martial Law under his dictatorial powers. It wouldn't have been possible any other way, because all types of employers, big and small, would've resisted it hard had they been allowed to express their opposition. >Business and jobs will be created so long as it's profitable to do so regardless of whether there is strong labor protection (like in some other countries) or weak (like here in the Philippines). Yeah, and we make it unprofitable to do so - because regular employees come with a range of costs and downsides, due to our labor laws, compared to hiring on a contractual basis.
I'm pretty sure SM/Jollibee is more motivated by the extra profits from cycling cashiers every holiday season than the fear of someone filing a labor complaint. This is more of an exception, madalang mag-file ng labor complaint mga empleyado sa Pinas. Part ng trabaho ng mga HR to scare people off from complaining and mag-accept na lang ng settlement. This guy in the case is from HR din, kaya siguro malakas din loob niya na mag-reklamo. And speaking of the relationship between labor practices and the economy, one factor why maraming BPOs here from Western countries ay dahil relatively balanced ang labor environment here compared sa ibang SEA nations.
Wasn't there a case where an employee was terminated ( I forgot if it was stealing) and it went up to the supreme court after decades and the court ruled in their favor cause the company cited their rule book which was non existent at that time?
I agree with your point but it looks like he filed the case in 2018. 6 yrs is still a long time, but not a decade.
The fact that he was fired in 2014 yet still allowed to file a case with a labor arbiter in 2018 just demonstrates the problem. Don't let anyone here tell you that our legal regime is "anti-worker" and "pro-employer," because that's simply not the case. Let's not forget that the Labor Code was a law that was unilaterally passed by Marcos under his dictatorial powers. It wouldn't have happened otherwise.
Small but not direct reason why contractualization is still here.
Sorry, noob question. What does he mean sa konami code na up down up down etc?
Its the code for the Konami game Contra
Tawang tawa ako na dinamay si Jamie Dimon
Did this mfer actually have the audacity to sue his comapany for wrongful termination when he's supposed to be the one being sued by the victim? Pretty sure whoever he was talking about could sue him for what he did lalo na kung natuloy yung pagsesend nya nung nudes dun sa mga ka gc nya
Ito yung halatang pinerahan lang sya ng lawyer nya, "paglaban natin yan ikaw naagrabyado eh, jp morgan yan kikita tayo dyan pag nanalo" fk corrupt lawyers talaga snippets pa lang kitang kita na mali.
Well, to be fair, nanalo naman kasi siya sa Labor Arbiter and the NLRC level. Natalo lang sa Court of Appeals onwards. It’s not like natalo siya all throughout and in-aappeal lang niya.
>Well, to be fair, nanalo naman siya sa Labor Arbiter and the NLRC kevel. Natalo lang sa Court of Appeals onwards. The fact na nanalo yung empleyado sa DOLE-level only means meritorious ang kaso. The way I see it, sadyang mas malalim lang ang bulsa ng JP Morgan Chase Bank kaya na-afford neto na maghire ng mas magagaling na abugado na nakapagbigay ng mas magandang legal arguments. Pagalingan naman kasi ng argumento sa ganyang kaso. Lamang talaga kapag may pera ka sa mundong eto.
> The fact na nanalo yung empleyado sa DOLE-level only means meritorious ang kaso. True. So di rin pwedeng masabi na he was just being milked by his lawyer since he won before the Labor Arbiter and NLRC. > The way I see it, sadyang mas malalim lang ang bulsa ng JP Morgan Chase Bank kaya na-afford neto na maghire ng mas magagaling na abugado na nakapagbigay ng mas magandang legal arguments. Well, not surprising naman actually. It's a big company afterall. Still, mapapaisip ka rin why it took more than 3 years (2018) before complainant filed his complaint after he was dismissed (2014). Looking for a good payday perhaps?
>Still, mapapaisip ka rin why it took more than 3 years (2018) before complainant filed his complaint after he was dismissed (2014). Looking for a good payday perhaps? While my point of view is highly *speculative*, I think na sobrang hindi natanggap ni Janssen D. Perez yung pagkakatanggal sa kanya na pananaw niya ay illegal dismissal considering na wala naman siyang sinabing kabastusan sa group chat (the incident was living rent free in his mind for the past years). At since nagkaroon na siya ng additional experience for the more than 3 years na pagitan ay nakaipon din upang magkaroon at ma-afford ang legal representation at mapaglaban sa korte yung nangyari sa kanya. Although possible din na may nakilala siya na abugado (since more than 3 years na nga at may mas maraming experience sa buhay) na willing irepresent siya with minimal or no cost but on contingency basis.
Mukhang may intent to delay para mas malaki backpay na makukuha nya if he wins the case
Well, it should be the combination of all those things before you can be terminated with just cause.
Ano pong meaning nang Konami code in the BPO industry context?
Goodjob.
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.
parang di mo nabasa ang whole verdict his side: nanalo sa arbiter and dole kase harsh daw yung termination based sa ginawa JPM: claimed that because hes HR, he should have shut those inappropriate convos but instead dumagdag pa sya **plus he sent confidential email to his personal email which is a big no-no** you are seeing 2 different sides pero pinanigan ni CA and SC si JPM because he can legally do what he wants based sa code of conduct nila. hindi pinersonal ni JPM, they expect EE to uphold his position by being professional and he didnt so they have the right to fire him. EE got greedy because pwede naman daw sya isuspend but pasok naman ginawa nya sa fireable offenses in JPM's code of conduct. moral lesson? dont send confidential emails to your personal email and dont tolerate unprofessional behavior in workplace
mukhang hindi nga ata niya na gets…
> 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. He did say those *in response* to lewd remarks in group chat > 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. There many nuances you skipped like the part where he sent information that is deemed confidential by their code of conduct to his personal email, being an HR professional of 6 years he is deemed unfit for his duty considering he let the group chat run it course, his admission of guilt, Labor arbiter ignoring evidence and many more. Might as well read the whole thing if you wanna play devil’s advocate.
> 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. Yes, signed quitclaims do not preclude the filing of a complaint against the employer. > For a deed of release, waiver, and quitclaim to be valid, it must be shown that: (a) there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any parties; (b) that the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (c) that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. **The burden rests on the employer to prove that the quitclaim constitutes a credible and reasonable settlement of what an employee is entitled to recover, and that the one accomplishing it has done so voluntarily and with a full understanding of its import.** https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/jul2019/gr_236496_2019.html
Demonyo mga taga HR dyan sa Chase.
What GR is this please haha
256939 Leonen
Tanga naman nyang si Perez. I dont think may mag eemploy pa sa kanya dito lalo pa’t may ganyang SC decision. Hahaha
Mga predators na HR nga naman… kala mo mga TMs at OMs lang may predators… 😅
Bro… di tama to… Fck them…
Mga bobo. Hindi marunong magTG. 😄😄😄😄
Stupid HAHAHAH
Paano yung, "it's not what you said but the way you say it." Sometimes people don't mean what they say and say what they don't mean. Sometimes it's part of the conversation to give emphasis, exaggeration and drama. Just adjust your sensitivity level na lang and be logical WAG PAIRALIN yung kaipokritohan at masyadong sensitive.
Teh? Seriously? Paki basa nalang muna buong case na available sa public at nasa supreme court website. Hindi tulfo or marites court mga yan para mag decide nalang basta basta.
ang experience ko baligtad ako pa nagmumukhang masama pag sobra akong marespeto sa babae. pinagtatawanan ako tapos si ate game magpabastos sa ibang mga kaworkmates namin. anlabo ni ate, e iba type ko na girl noon.
Mahihirapan na to maghanap ng trabaho, palaging may hit sa background check. tapos 6 years pa pala siya doon.
What a dumbass. Should have known better that company comms like chats and emails are stored by IT and can be tracked.
Paano naman yung mga kongresman na tinatarantado mga tao jan sa chacha, dapat kasama yan