Disclaimer: The following discussion is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific concerns regarding Philippine labor law or termination disputes, it is best to consult a qualified labor lawyer.

Overview

In Philippine labor law, an employer may terminate an employee for “just causes” under Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code of the Philippines. One recognized just cause is serious misconduct. Threatening one’s employer—or engaging in behavior that jeopardizes the safety or security of the employer, co-employees, or the company—can fall under serious misconduct. If the threat is sufficiently grave, it may serve as legal ground for an employer to end the employment relationship.

Because the stakes are high in termination cases, Philippine jurisprudence sets clear requirements before a dismissal on this ground may be deemed valid. Proper procedural due process must also be observed. Below is a comprehensive discussion of the relevant provisions, legal standards, and case examples.

Legal Basis

1. Labor Code of the Philippines

Article 297 [previously Article 282] of the Labor Code provides the just causes for termination by the employer:
1. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
2. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
3. Fraud or willful breach of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;
4. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and
5. Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

Threatening or harassing the employer typically falls under serious misconduct or commission of a crime/offense against the employer, depending on the circumstances and how the threat is carried out. However, not every expression of anger or frustration automatically qualifies as a just cause; the act or threat must be proven to be grave and/or willful.

2. Supreme Court Decisions

Philippine jurisprudence clarifies how courts determine whether a threat against an employer amounts to serious misconduct:

Nature of the Act: The misconduct must be of a grave and aggravated character. In multiple rulings, the Supreme Court has held that raising one’s voice in anger or minor acts of disrespect, while objectionable, may not always reach the threshold of serious misconduct. By contrast, a credible and imminent threat to harm the employer or management can be deemed serious.
Relation to Work: The threat or misconduct must be related to the performance of the employee’s duties. Although a threat made off-duty can, in some circumstances, still justify termination, typically there should be a connection to the work environment or business operations to classify it as serious misconduct within the meaning of the law.
Willfulness: The conduct must be willful, meaning it is done with wrongful intent rather than by mistake or accident. A provoked outburst or misunderstanding may not necessarily be enough to justify dismissal, unless it clearly shows a deliberate and hostile intent to harm or intimidate the employer.
Proof or Substantial Evidence: The employer bears the burden of proving the existence of just cause. Documents (e.g., security reports), witness statements, and other corroborative evidence may be required to demonstrate the gravity of the threat and the employee’s culpability.

Defining “Threats” Under Philippine Law

Under Philippine law, “threats” can range from light threats to grave threats, as defined in the Revised Penal Code. Although not all workplace threats rise to the level of a criminal offense, any credible statement or action that puts the employer in fear of impending harm can be considered “serious misconduct” if it disrupts the integrity and safety of the workplace.

Grave Threats (Article 282, Revised Penal Code): Involve a threat to commit a crime (e.g., physical harm, serious bodily injury).
Light Threats (Article 283, Revised Penal Code): Typically involve threats to do harm not constituting a crime, but which may still engender fear or alarm.

Even if the threat does not amount to a criminal charge, it can still be serious enough under labor law to justify dismissal if it undermines workplace discipline or endangers the employer’s safety.

Elements of Serious Misconduct

When an employer seeks to terminate an employee for threatening behavior, the following must be proven under the element of serious misconduct:

Wrongful Intent: The employee intended the threat. It is not simply a misstatement or a spur-of-the-moment expletive absent genuine desire to harm or intimidate.
Grave Nature of the Act: The threat must be serious enough to undermine the employer’s confidence in the employee or create an unsafe work environment.
Connection to Employment: The act must be work-related or have a direct impact on the employer-employee relationship.

Procedural Due Process Requirements

In the Philippines, even if a just cause for dismissal exists, an employer must still observe procedural due process. Failure to follow proper procedure can render the dismissal illegal or result in the award of indemnity for procedural lapses, even if the ground for termination is valid.

Two-Notice Rule:
- First Notice (Show-Cause Notice or Charge Sheet): The employer must give the employee a written notice specifying the cause for termination and providing an opportunity to explain why they should not be dismissed.
- Second Notice (Notice of Decision): If the employer finds sufficient grounds after the employee has been given a chance to respond, the employer issues a second written notice formally terminating the employment.
Opportunity to be Heard: The employee must be allowed to explain their side, either in writing or, if feasible, through a hearing or conference.
Reasonable Time to Respond: The employee should be given ample time to prepare a defense. In practice, at least five (5) calendar days is a commonly accepted period, though the law does not rigidly prescribe the exact timeframe.

Non-compliance with procedural due process can lead to liability for nominal damages even if the dismissal is substantively valid.

Burden of Proof

Under Philippine labor law, the employer carries the burden of proof in termination cases. A mere allegation of threatening behavior is not enough. The employer must submit substantial evidence—such as witness affidavits, security incident reports, CCTV footage, or documented text messages—that credibly establish the employee’s wrongdoing. Failure to do so may result in a ruling of illegal dismissal.

Common Defenses by the Employee

Lack of Intent: Arguing the words were uttered in the heat of the moment without actual intent to threaten.
Provocation: Claiming provocation by a supervisor or management, leading to an outburst that does not reach “serious misconduct.”
Lack of Evidence: Contesting the authenticity of the employer’s proof—e.g., challenging the credibility of witnesses or the accuracy of reported incidents.
Procedural Defects: Asserting that the employer failed to observe the two-notice rule or any form of due process.

Relevant Jurisprudential Principles

While specific case titles and docket numbers can be extensive, below are some established judicial principles that often appear in Supreme Court rulings:

Serious Misconduct Necessitates a High Degree of Wrongful Intent: Courts are cautious in labeling an act “serious misconduct” absent a clear, deliberate desire to violate a legitimate company rule or cause harm.
Context Matters: The courts review the context—what triggered the threat, the employee’s employment record, the actual harm or potential harm to the employer, and whether the threat was credible.
Proportionality: Dismissal as a penalty must be “proportionate” to the offense. If the threat is vague, non-credible, or made in a moment of anger without real possibility of harm, some decisions may consider suspension or a lighter penalty.

Practical Guidance for Employers

Immediate Documentation: Record the incident promptly (e.g., date, time, place, names of witnesses).
Neutral Investigation: Interview all parties involved, ensuring due process and fair treatment.
Written Notices: Comply strictly with the two-notice rule—provide a charge sheet (or show-cause memorandum) and a notice of decision, ensuring the employee has enough time to respond.
Evidence Preservation: Secure CCTV recordings (if any), text messages, chat logs, or any other records that can substantiate the threat.
Consult Legal Counsel: If the threat is severe or if criminal liability may attach, seek a lawyer’s advice promptly.

Practical Guidance for Employees

Respond to Charges: If served with a show-cause notice, file a thorough written explanation supported by evidence (if available).
Seek Representation: You may consult a union representative (if unionized) or an independent lawyer to protect your rights.
Gather Witnesses: If the threat was misinterpreted or if there is context mitigating your actions, secure statements from colleagues who can corroborate your version of events.
Maintain Professionalism: Avoid compounding the issue by engaging in additional misconduct or disrespect. Maintain a calm and cooperative stance during the investigation.

Conclusion

In Philippine labor law, termination for threatening an employer can be legally justified under the ground of serious misconduct or commission of an offense against the employer—provided there is substantial evidence to prove the threat’s gravity and a clear violation of workplace standards. However, employers must adhere strictly to procedural due process before effecting a dismissal, and the penalty must be commensurate to the misconduct. Employees, on the other hand, retain the right to due process, an opportunity to defend themselves, and the ability to question the validity of the employer’s evidence and procedure.

Should an employment dispute on this ground proceed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) or to the courts, the case will turn on whether the employer can prove the credibility and seriousness of the threat, as well as the observance of procedural safeguards. Ultimately, while the law respects the employer’s prerogative to dismiss for just cause, it also safeguards employees from arbitrary or wrongful termination.

Disclaimer: This article aims to provide a general overview and is not a substitute for personalized legal advice. Each case is unique, and consultation with a labor law attorney is crucial to address specific legal concerns.