Workplace violence—ranging from threats and harassment to physical assault—tests an employer’s ability to protect people, preserve order, and enforce discipline without violating employee rights. In the Philippine private sector, the legal fulcrum is authorized discipline and termination for just causes under the Labor Code, paired with procedural due process (the “twin-notice rule” and meaningful opportunity to be heard). When mishandled, even a seemingly obvious act of violence can lead to findings of illegal dismissal, money awards, or, at minimum, damages for defective due process.

This article lays out the legal framework and practical drafting approach for disciplinary action involving “grave misconduct” and workplace violence in a Philippine employment context.

1) “Grave Misconduct” vs “Serious Misconduct”: Getting the Terminology Right

A. Private-sector Labor Code terminology: Serious Misconduct

In private employment disputes, the Labor Code identifies “serious misconduct” as a just cause for termination (commonly referenced under Article 297 [formerly 282]). Many decisions and HR documents colloquially use “grave misconduct” to mean “serious misconduct,” but the legally operative Labor Code term is serious misconduct.

B. Why “grave misconduct” still appears

“Grave misconduct” is often seen in:

internal codes of conduct (e.g., “gross and grave misconduct” as a dismissible offense),
Civil Service cases (government employment), and
older HR templates.

Best practice: In a termination decision for a private employer, anchor the ground on Serious Misconduct (Labor Code) and, if your internal rules use “grave misconduct,” treat that as your company’s classification that maps to the Labor Code ground.

2) Core Legal Sources and Concepts (Private Employment)

A. Just causes (Labor Code framework)

Workplace violence most often falls under one or more of these just causes:

Serious Misconduct Covers improper conduct that is serious and relates to the performance of duties, showing wrongful intent.
Willful Disobedience / Insubordination Applies when violence occurs in defiance of lawful orders, policies, or directives.
Commission of a Crime or Offense against the employer, the employer’s family, or a duly authorized representative Often invoked for assaults or threats directed at supervisors, managers, security, or authorized reps.
Analogous causes A catch-all for causes similar in nature to enumerated just causes (must be clearly “analogous”).

In addition, if the employee is managerial or holds a position of trust, violence and threats can also support loss of trust and confidence—but that ground requires careful factual basis and cannot be a convenient fallback.

B. Employer burdens: Substantial evidence and fairness

In labor cases, the employer must prove termination or discipline is supported by substantial evidence (such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept). For violence cases, this means credible, documented proof—not merely generalized claims.

C. Proportionality and context

Even when misconduct is proven, tribunals often examine:

the gravity of the act (threat vs. actual harm),
intent and provocation,
prior infractions and progressive discipline (if applicable),
position, responsibilities, and workplace impact,
whether the act destroyed trust or posed serious safety risk.

A single severe act of violence can justify dismissal even for a first offense, but your documentation must explain why it is severe and why continued employment is untenable.

3) What Counts as Serious Misconduct in Workplace Violence Cases

A. Key elements commonly required

Philippine labor jurisprudence generally treats serious misconduct as requiring:

Misconduct: improper or wrongful conduct (not mere error of judgment),
Seriousness: of such grave character—not trivial,
Work-relatedness: connected to the performance of duties or showing unfitness to continue working with the employer,
Wrongful intent: willful, deliberate, or showing wrongful attitude.

For workplace violence, the “work-related” requirement is often satisfied when the incident occurs:

on company premises,
during work time,
at a company event,
in the context of work relationships (supervisor-subordinate disputes, work assignments, enforcement of policies),
using workplace channels (company chat, email, security logs).

B. Violence spectrum (examples)

Typically serious enough to support dismissal (depending on proof):

punching, kicking, choking, stabbing, throwing dangerous objects,
brandishing a weapon at work,
credible death threats (spoken, written, or via messages),
repeated threats/intimidation that create a hostile, unsafe environment,
assaulting a supervisor or security personnel during enforcement of workplace rules.

Often disciplinable, but dismissal depends on context and recurrence:

shouting with aggressive posturing,
single instance of profanity (unless highly aggravated, targeted, or accompanied by threats),
heated argument without threats/assault (may be “conduct unbecoming,” disorderly conduct, or insubordination).

4) Evidence: Building a Record That Survives Scrutiny

A. Evidence checklist for workplace violence cases

Incident report (time, place, parties, narrative, immediate actions)
Sworn statements (witness affidavits) from:
- complainant/victim,
- direct witnesses,
- responding supervisor/security
CCTV footage (secure original files; document chain of custody)
Photos of injuries or damaged property
Medical records (if injury)
Security logs / blotter entries
Chat messages, emails, call logs (authenticate and preserve originals)
Prior disciplinary records (if progressive discipline is relevant)
Company policies violated (Code of Conduct, anti-violence policy, weapons policy)
Proof of authority of the supervisor/representative involved (for crime/offense against “authorized representative”)

B. Common evidentiary pitfalls

relying solely on anonymous complaints without corroboration,
inconsistent witness accounts not reconciled in the decision,
failure to authenticate screenshots,
CCTV not preserved or presented,
no clear policy basis (or policy exists but was not communicated),
treating rumors as findings.

5) Due Process: The Non-Negotiable Procedural Steps

For termination (and often even for serious suspension), Philippine standards expect procedural due process:

Step 1: First Written Notice (Notice to Explain / Charge Sheet)

This must clearly state:

the specific acts or omissions complained of (who, what, when, where),
the rule/policy violated and/or the Labor Code ground invoked (e.g., Serious Misconduct; Commission of a Crime/Offense),
a directive to submit a written explanation within a reasonable period (commonly at least 5 calendar days is used in practice),
an invitation to an administrative conference/hearing (or a notice that one will be scheduled),
a reminder that a decision will be made after evaluation of evidence.

Drafting tip: Avoid vague charges like “bad behavior” or “attitude problem.” Write it like a fact pattern that can be tested.

Step 2: Opportunity to Be Heard (Administrative Conference)

A hearing is not always a full-blown trial, but there must be:

a real chance to respond,
a chance to present evidence and explain,
a fair consideration of defenses (e.g., self-defense, provocation, mistaken identity, alibi).

Good practice in violence cases: Hold separate interviews for complainant and respondent; ensure safety; allow a representative if your rules/CBAs permit; document minutes.

Step 3: Second Written Notice (Notice of Decision)

This must state:

the findings of fact,
the basis for credibility (why you believe X over Y),
the company policy and legal ground,
the penalty (dismissal/suspension/final warning),
effectivity date,
any final pay/clearance process (without using it to coerce waiver).

If imposing suspension instead of dismissal: define inclusive dates, consequences of recurrence, and reintegration conditions.

6) Preventive Suspension: When and How to Use It Safely

In workplace violence cases, employers often need immediate action to protect people and preserve evidence.

A. When justified

Preventive suspension is typically justified when the employee’s continued presence poses:

a serious and imminent threat to life or property, or
a significant risk of witness intimidation, retaliation, or evidence tampering.

B. Key parameters (practical compliance)

Put it in writing, with reasons tied to safety/investigation.
Treat it as non-penal (not a finding of guilt).
Observe the commonly applied maximum period practice (often up to 30 days), and if extension is necessary, handle pay implications carefully and document necessity.

Drafting tip: Use specific language: “to prevent further harm and to ensure an unhampered investigation,” not “because you are guilty.”

7) Choosing the Proper Charge: Mapping Workplace Violence to Legal Grounds

A single violent incident can be charged under multiple grounds. Draft with discipline—pick those best supported by facts.

A. Serious Misconduct (workplace violence core)

Use when the act itself shows wrongful intent and is gravely improper.

You must explain why the violence is serious and how it affects the workplace relationship and safety.

B. Commission of a Crime/Offense (especially against authorized representatives)

Use when the violence/threat is directed at:

the employer,
the employer’s family,
or an authorized representative (e.g., manager enforcing policies).

You must show the victim’s role/authority and the connection to employment.

C. Willful Disobedience / Insubordination

Use when violence occurred in defiance of:

a lawful order,
safety protocols,
security instructions (e.g., refused bag check; attacked guard).

You must show the order was lawful, reasonable, known, and related to duties.

D. Loss of Trust and Confidence (for positions of trust)

Use when the respondent’s role requires trust and their conduct shows unfitness.

Caution: This is not a catch-all. Overuse without a clear factual basis is a common reason decisions get struck down.

8) Drafting the Documents: Practical Templates and Clauses (Non-Form, What to Include)

A. Notice to Explain (NTE) – Must-have content blocks

Case caption: “Administrative Charge: Workplace Violence / Serious Misconduct”
Detailed narration:
- date/time/place,
- sequence of events,
- exact words used (if threats),
- injury/damage,
- witnesses/CCTV reference.
Rules violated:
- cite the Code of Conduct provisions,
- cite the Labor Code ground(s).
Directive:
- written explanation deadline,
- schedule of conference,
- reminder to submit counter-evidence.
Preventive suspension notice (if applicable) as a separate section with justification.

B. Administrative Conference Minutes – Must-have elements

attendees, date/time, location,
advisement of purpose and process,
respondent’s response (verbatim key points),
documents presented and marked,
clarificatory questions and answers,
closing statement that decision will be issued.

C. Notice of Decision – Must-have reasoning structure

Issues: What is being decided?
Facts found: Based on what evidence?
Credibility: Why certain testimony is credited
Rule and law: Policy + Labor Code ground
Analysis:
- seriousness,
- work connection,
- intent,
- impact on safety/order,
- why penalty is proportionate.
Disposition:
- penalty,
- effectivity,
- final reminders (return of property, clearance process).

Drafting tip: Write like a decision-maker: show that you weighed the defense, not ignored it.

9) Defenses You Should Expect (and How to Address Them in Writing)

A. Self-defense

If claimed, analyze:

unlawful aggression by the other party,
reasonable necessity of means employed,
lack of sufficient provocation.

Even if you’re not applying criminal law strictly, these factors help evaluate whether the employee’s conduct was justified or excessive.

B. Provocation / heat of anger

A common mitigation argument. Address:

whether provocation was real and serious,
whether response was disproportionate,
whether the employee had alternatives (walk away, call supervisor/security).

C. Denial and alibi

Confront with:

CCTV,
multiple consistent witnesses,
timestamps and location data,
contemporaneous reports.

D. “Off-duty / outside work”

Assess:

location (company premises),
relationship (co-workers/supervisor),
cause (work dispute),
spillover effect (threats at work after-hours).

10) Parallel Tracks: Administrative Discipline vs Criminal/Police Action

Workplace violence can lead to:

internal administrative discipline, and
criminal complaints (e.g., physical injuries, grave threats, unjust vexation), depending on facts.

Key point: These are independent. An employer may proceed with administrative action even if:

no criminal case is filed,
the prosecutor has not yet acted,
the parties “settle” criminally—because the employer is protecting workplace order and safety, not merely vindicating a private wrong.

Drafting caution: Avoid statements that appear to prejudge criminal guilt. Use “based on evidence gathered” and “for purposes of company administrative proceedings.”

11) Policy and Prevention: Strengthening Enforceability Before Incidents

A disciplinary case is easiest to defend when policies are clear, communicated, and consistently enforced.

A. Recommended policy components

zero-tolerance statement for violence, threats, weapons,
definitions and examples (threats, intimidation, stalking, harassment),
reporting channels and anti-retaliation,
investigation process and timelines,
preventive suspension parameters,
sanctions matrix (with discretion for severe cases),
coordination with security and emergency response.

B. Training and consistent enforcement

Inconsistent enforcement (e.g., forgiving favored employees) becomes a fairness issue that can undermine the credibility of management action.

12) Special Considerations

A. Unionized workplaces / CBAs

Check:

CBA provisions on discipline procedure, representation, grievance steps,
whether the employee has a right to union representation during conferences,
timelines that may be stricter than general practice.

B. Data privacy and confidentiality

Violence investigations often involve:

medical data,
CCTV,
sensitive witness statements.

Limit circulation to those with a genuine need to know; secure evidence; document lawful purpose.

C. Victim support and OSH obligations

Employers have a duty to keep the workplace safe. While labor adjudication focuses on dismissal legality, poor incident response (ignoring complaints, failing to act on threats) can create broader liabilities and reputational risk.

13) A Practical Decision Guide for HR and Legal Teams

Use this when deciding penalty and drafting the decision:

What exactly happened? Separate facts from conclusions. Identify objective anchors (CCTV, injuries, contemporaneous reports).
Which ground fits best? Serious misconduct is usually primary; add commission of a crime/offense or insubordination only if clearly supported.
Is the evidence substantial and organized? If you cannot explain the case coherently without leaps, you may not have enough.
Was due process clean? Clear NTE, real opportunity to be heard, reasoned decision.
Is the penalty proportionate and defensible? Explain why lesser penalties won’t protect safety/order or restore trust.

14) Common Drafting Mistakes That Sink Otherwise Valid Cases

Vague NTEs that don’t specify the acts, dates, or violated rules.
No real hearing (or “hearing” where the outcome is predetermined).
Decision letters that ignore defenses like self-defense or provocation.
Overcharging (throwing every ground in the Labor Code without factual support).
Inconsistent sanctions compared with prior similar incidents.
Poor evidence handling (lost CCTV, unauthenticated screenshots).
Language that sounds like criminal conviction rather than administrative findings.

15) Bottom Line

In Philippine labor law, workplace violence can justify termination under serious misconduct, commission of a crime/offense, insubordination, and related grounds—but only when the employer proves the act by substantial evidence and follows procedural due process with carefully drafted notices and a reasoned decision. The strongest disciplinary actions are those that read like a fair, evidence-based adjudication—specific, consistent, and anchored on both policy and the Labor Code.