Employee Threats Toward the Employer under Philippine Labor Law
A comprehensive doctrinal and practical guide
1. Statutory Anchors
| Source | Key Provision | Relevance to Threats |
|---|---|---|
| Labor Code, Art. 297 [formerly 282] | “Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the employer, his family, or his duly authorized representatives” is a just cause for dismissal. | A “threat” that qualifies as a crime (e.g., grave threats) squarely fits this ground. |
| Labor Code, Art. 299 [283] & Art. 300 [284] | Define authorized causes (redundancy, disease, etc.). Employee threats are not an authorized cause; the correct anchor is “just cause.” | |
| Department Order (DO) 147-15 | Codifies twin-notice and hearing requirements and lists “threatening behavior” under serious misconduct and commission of a crime. | |
| Revised Penal Code (“RPC”) | - Art. 282 (Grave Threats) |
- Art. 285 (Light Threats) | If an employee’s words/acts satisfy these articles, an independent criminal action (and thus a Labor Code just cause) arises. | | Civil Code, Art. 1701 | Prohibits “acts of oppression by either employer or employee.” Though rarely invoked, it underscores reciprocal duty of respect. | | Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313) | Threats containing sexist, misogynistic, or homophobic content may also be gender-based workplace violence, creating additional employer obligations. | | Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Sec. II | Employers must keep the workplace “free from injury-producing conditions,” including violence and threats thereof. |
2. When Is a “Threat” a Just Cause for Dismissal?
Philippine jurisprudence looks at three overlapping just-cause rubrics:
Commission of a Crime or Offense
- Elements: (a) The act constitutes a crime, and (b) it is directed against the employer, employer’s property, or immediate family/authorized reps.
- A sworn complaint or criminal conviction is not indispensable; substantial evidence (credible witness statements, CCTV, security blotter, etc.) suffices in labor cases.
Serious Misconduct
- Threatening to kill, maim, or sabotage operations is misconduct because it is work-related, wrongful, and of such gravity that it destroys trust.
Loss of Trust and Confidence (LOTAC)
- Applies if the employee holds a fiduciary or managerial position and the threat evidences betrayal of employer’s interests (e.g., threatening to leak trade secrets).
Key test: Substantial evidence showing that the threat is real, culpable, and connected to work. Mere bravado or momentary outburst, without proof of malice or real intent, generally does not justify dismissal—but may merit suspension.
3. Procedural Due Process
First Notice (Charge Sheet)
- Facts, specific acts, and the legal ground (e.g., “grave threat constituting serious misconduct and commission of a crime”).
Ample Opportunity to Explain
- At least five (5) calendar days to submit a written explanation; hearing is optional unless requested.
Second Notice (Decision)
- Must state findings, evidence, and the legal basis for termination.
Failure to observe the above does not nullify the dismissal if the cause is proven, but the employer owes nominal damages (₱30,000 under Agabon v. NLRC).
Preventive Suspension
- Allowed up to 30 days (Art. 299-A; DO 147-15), if the employee’s continued presence poses a “serious and imminent threat” to life or property.
- Suspension beyond 30 days requires pay or justified extension.
4. Jurisprudential Highlights
| Case | G.R. No. & Date | Ratio & Guiding Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Pacific Timber v. NLRC | G.R. 78518, 23 Apr 1991 | Threat to kill the manager with a bolo = “serious misconduct” + “commission of an offense”; dismissal upheld. |
| Gold City Integrated Port Services v. NLRC | G.R. 86000, 28 Feb 1992 | Angry outburst + threats to inflict harm on supervisor; SC sustained dismissal; preventive suspension proper. |
| St. Luke’s Medical Ctr. v. Sanchez | G.R. 212054, 17 Jul 2019 | Reiterated that “substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt,” is the labor standard for crime-based dismissals. |
| Catatista v. NLRC | G.R. 164983, 17 Apr 2007 | Threats uttered during a heated union meeting, uncorroborated, held insufficient; reinstatement ordered. |
| PLDT v. Tiamson | G.R. 164684, 17 Jun 2019 | Text messages threatening sabotage of network = LOTAC; managerial employee legally dismissed. |
| Agabon v. NLRC | G.R. 158693, 17 Nov 2004 | Established nominal-damages rule for dismissals with cause but without procedural due process. |
5. Criminal vs. Labor Proceedings
| Aspect | Labor Case | Criminal Case |
|---|---|---|
| Standard | Substantial evidence | Proof beyond reasonable doubt |
| Forum | NLRC/DOLE, voluntary arbitration, or company-level | Prosecutor’s Office, regular courts |
| Outcome | Reinstatement, backwages, separation pay, nominal damages | Imprisonment, fine, probation |
| Effect of Acquittal | Does not automatically negate just cause | N/A |
| Effect of Conviction | Admissible proof of offense | N/A—labor case may run ahead |
Strategic note: Employers commonly file criminal complaints (Affidavit-Complaint under Art. 282 RPC) parallel to the labor process to reinforce substantial evidence and obtain protective orders.
6. Mitigating and Aggravating Factors
Mitigating
- Length of service with clean record
- Provocation or emotional distress
- Immediate apology and sincere retraction
Aggravating
- Use or brandishing of a weapon
- Threats coupled with physical attack or property damage
- Direct interference with business operations (e.g., bomb scare)
- Prior warnings or suspensions for similar acts
Employers may downgrade the penalty (e.g., to suspension) when strong mitigating factors exist, consistent with the policy of social justice and security of tenure.
7. Employer Best Practices
Robust Anti-Violence Policy
- Zero-tolerance clause, definitions, disciplinary matrix.
Incident Documentation
- Collect CCTV footage, screenshots, witness affidavits immediately.
Safety Measures
- Escort services, access-card suspension, coordination with security agencies.
Immediate Written Notices
- Serve charge sheet personally or via registered mail/email with proof of dispatch.
Hearing Panel Composition
- Neutral HR + peer representative; avoid complainant as sole decision-maker.
Coordination with Authorities
- File barangay blotter or police report for credible threats.
Post-Incident Debrief
- Risk assessment; possible EAP (Employee Assistance Program) for workforce morale.
8. Employee Defenses & Remedies
- Denial and Alibi — assessed against totality of evidence.
- Provocation or Heat of Passion — may downgrade crime from grave to light threats; still misconduct.
- Due Process Violations — may win nominal or full backwages if dismissal proved procedurally infirm.
- Constructive Dismissal Claim — possible if employer’s reaction is oppressive (e.g., indefinite suspension).
- Union Grievance Mechanisms — CBA grievance machinery often precedes NLRC filing.
9. Intersection with Special Laws
| Law | Relevant Scenario |
|---|---|
| RA 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment) | Threat to harm if sexual favors refused. |
| RA 9262 (VAWC) | Threats toward employer where employer-spouse is victim. |
| RA 11058 & DO 198-18 (OSHS Act) | Employer’s duty to prevent workplace violence. |
| RA 11313 (Safe Spaces) | Gender-based threats; mandates investigation within 10 days. |
10. Checklist for Lawful Termination Based on Threats
- Is the act a crime or serious misconduct?
- Was it directed at employer, representative, or property?
- Substantial evidence secured?
- Twin notices and hearing observed?
- Preventive suspension (≤30 days) justified and paid if extended?
- Decision thoroughly explains facts, law, and penalty?
- Final pay and COE released within 30 days?
Practice Tip: Always draft the charge sheet and decision in plain, factual language (“On 22 May 2025 at 3:15 p.m., inside the Logistics Office, Mr. X brandished a box cutter and said, ‘Isang galaw mo pa, tatagain kita,’ directed at Warehouse Manager Y.”). Generic accusations (“You threatened your supervisor”) invite reversal.
11. Conclusion
In Philippine labor law, an employee’s threat against the employer is dealt with through the twin lenses of labor discipline and criminal justice. The Labor Code (Art. 297) expressly recognizes such threats—when criminal in nature—as a just cause for termination. However, the Supreme Court’s consistent refrain is that due process and proportionality remain paramount. Employers who compile substantial evidence, follow DO 147-15 procedures, and weigh mitigating circumstances can lawfully dismiss or otherwise discipline the offender. Conversely, employees retain ample defenses and remedies when accusations are unfounded or procedures are abused.
Ultimately, the legal framework works best when complemented by proactive, humane workplace policies that deter violence before it ever reaches the level of a threat.