Case Digest (G.R. No. 256939)
Facts:
Janssen D. Perez v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. Philippine Global Service Center, G.R. No. 256939, November 13, 2023, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, SAJ., writing for the Court.Petitioner Perez was hired by respondent JP Morgan Chase in 2008 as a customer service representative in its Human Resources Department. In May–October 2014 the employer investigated alleged misuse of its Office Communicator (an internal chat tool) where employees exchanged lewd and profane messages during office hours; Perez conceded limited participation in the chat and acknowledged forwarding a managerial email to his personal address, though he denied authoring the obscene remarks or transmitting confidential materials. After administrative conferences, respondent terminated Perez effective October 23, 2014; Perez later signed a release.
On March 2, 2018, Perez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement), backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter (July 9, 2018) ruled in Perez’s favor, finding dismissal illegal and awarding separation pay, backwages, and attorney’s fees, reasoning among other things that the chat snapshots were edited and thus the obscene statements could not be reliably imputed to Perez. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision (September 10, 2018) and denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration (December 28, 2018), reasoning the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the proven offense.
Respondent sought relief with the Court of Appeals, which, in CA-G.R. SP No. 160278, reversed the NLRC in a decision dated October 30, 2020, holding that respondent had sufficiently established serious misconduct: Perez actively participated in obscene conversations on a company communication tool during office hours and forwarded an official communication to his personal email without authorization. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration (June 16, 2021).
Perez elevated the case to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, challenging the Cour...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should this Court review the Court of Appeals’ factual findings in a Rule 45 petition, given the conflicting findings between the labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals?
- Was petitioner legally dismissed for just cause under Article 297 of the Labor Code based on his participation in profane chatroom conversations using company resources and for forwarding company comm...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)