G.R. No. 256939 - Perez vs. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A.

Janssen D. Perez was hired by JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. Philippine Global Service Center as a customer service representative in the Human Resources Department on June 27, 2008.
In May 2014, Perez received a Notice to Explain accusing him of participating in profane and indecent conversations about colleagues using the company-provided private chatroom, Office Communicator.

Perez admitted to sending messages like "hahaha" and "up down up down left right left right" but denied using profane language.
In a June 3, 2014 interview, Perez acknowledged the prohibition of obscenity under the company's Code of Conduct and admitted accessing employee information and sending emails to his personal email, denying they contained confidential information.
During a second administrative hearing in July 2014, Perez denied using profane language yet admitted participation.
On August 19, 2014, after admitting participation, a Notice to Explain was issued concerning possible violation of Workplace Behavior Guidelines on general conduct.
Perez denied charges but admitted improper use of company resources.
A conference was held on August 27, 2014 for Perez to raise his defense.
On October 24, 2014, Perez was informed of his termination effective October 23, 2014, for violating workplace behavior rules.

Perez signed a Release, Waiver, and Quitclaim on December 19, 2014.
On March 2, 2018, Perez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal seeking separation pay, back wages, damages, and attorney's fees.
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Perez on July 9, 2018, deeming dismissal illegal due to edited chat snapshots, awarding separation pay, backwages, and attorney's fees.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on September 10, 2018, stating dismissal penalty was disproportionate.
NLRC denied motion for reconsideration on December 28, 2018.

The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC's decision on October 30, 2020, affirming valid dismissal for serious misconduct.
Court of Appeals found that Perez participated actively in lewd conversations during work and unauthorized communication with his personal email.
Motion for reconsideration was denied on June 16, 2021.
Perez filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Perez argued illegal dismissal, denial of participation in the chatroom, lack of proof that forwarded emails contained confidential information, and asserted entitlement to monetary claims.
Respondent JP Morgan Chase argued the petition raised factual issues, insisted on the validity of dismissal supported by sufficient evidence, and denied claims for solidary liability against Jamie Dimon.