Former Colleague's Termination

I cannot help but write on the recent, or perhaps not-so-recent, termination of a former colleague from the company I used to work for. I know that this is rather late but I had been preoccupied writing my entry for the Palanca Awards for Literature these past weeks. Since I have loads of paperworks dumped in my table in my posh new office, I will keep this post short and abecedarian so that those nincompoops, who alleged that they were "indirectly verbally abused" would at least have a little knowledge of the letter of the law. And do not ever say in your defense that you are no legal genius for as the Civil Code clearly states, but in English though, "Ignorantia juris non excusat."

Although I was saddened by the fact that a former colleague was terminated, I cannot help myself but laugh on a supposedly serious matter. As I browse through the notarized response of Faye, with other pertinent documents appended, which makes it a public document and therefore susceptible to public scrutiny, I found myself amazed by the manner the complainants stated their cause. I will not give any value judgment on how the case was resolved by the management as i still have my respect for them. Also, I will remove this post should Faye decide to file a case before the NLRC and the same takes cognizance of it.

First of all, there is no such thing as indirect verbal abuse as it is an oxymoron in itself. How can one indirectly abuse someone? Verbal abuse is "the intentional infliction of harm or emotional distress though the use of words." One claiming that she was indirectly abused means that she really was not inflicted with harm and emotional distress. Reviewing from their written complaints, the primary consideration for their cause was the utterance of unpleasant words, which they claim were indirect abuse to their persons. Following the strict construction of the letter of the law, there is no cause for them to file a charge as they were not injured, as they themselves had already claimed. Also, the fact they they claim to be as only indirectly affected gives them no reason to file a complaint as they have no legal standing.

Also, in cases wherein the crux of controversy is that arising from a verbal abuse, the one being compensated for is not the utterance of unpleasant words per se, but rather the injury inflicted by the utterance of such words to one's person. Hence, the facts of the case at bar clearly show that it will not even survive demurrer due to absence of cause. Complainants failed to establish that the utterance of unpleasant words had caused them too grave emotional distress that they can no longer come to work or something to that effect.

Faye's utterance of those adjectives were constitutionally guaranteed by her right to free speech. Faye's observations were not proven to cause injury, let alone, directed to anyone. Even the complainants had admitted that they only heard Faye indirectly uttering those statements. Though verbal abuse being the crux of the controversy, another issue at bar was the alleged provocation. Assuming without conceding that Faye's words were grave enough to cause a fight, her utterance was not provocative as the complainants did not take necessary action to address that purported provocation. An attack is necessary to say that there was provocation. The fact that the complainants did not do anything means they were not provoked.

I am in no position to question the wisdom of the court. Luckily, the case at bar was far from being a court decision. I know my law and I know my jurisprudence. So, I dare ask: what could possibly constitute one's termination if the very crux of controversy could not even stand demurrer?

Send me comments.

UP LAE 2008

I passed LAE. yey!

Welcome back

i dont know what came in to my mind that i want to start writing entries for my blog. what am i thinking? i have time to write entries for my blog but i havent started yet for a 5 week practicum journal due on the 28th. a very big good luck to me!

Why am I like this?

Projection


Aaron looks at himself and sees not the sparkle of a diamond but the ugly darkness of smudges of faults and weaknesses. Darkest of all are the ones which he feels keeping him from winning the conditional love offered to him by his friends. But the more he focuses his attention on these dark spots, the less loved he feels and the more he hates himself. So, what does he do? There arises in him a handy little defense mechanism called projection by which he covers these dark blots with a brightly colored curtain and projects them into other people. Finding fault with others is much easier and less painful.

People ask “Why Aaron such a fault-finder? Is he that proud? Maybe. But more likely it is because he is insecure. He is criticizing himself in others because he does not love himself enough. He seems to be finding fault with others; but really it is unconscious, less painful way of hating himself.

Sorry for self

Another aspect of Aaron’s character is that he often feels sorry for himself. He has moods of depression in which he keeps reminding himself how miserable he is. Here again the root cause is that Aaron does not love himself enough. He paints such a miserable, pessimistic picture of himself that no one could help but feel sorry for him. Certainly Aaron can’t resist the urge. Self-pity makes him feel better.

Anger

But his reaction to his self-image is not always one of bittersweet self-pity. He at times get violently angry when he commits a fault, because he feels that this makes him appear even more corrupt and ugly. When this happens he sometimes punishes himself morbidly, or he will use projection to punish himself in others with anger, resentment and even violence. It is easier that way. It is a more convenient and less painful way of hating and punishing himself – IN OTHERS.


Lonely


Perhaps Aaron’s most painful experiences are in his search for friendship. Insecure and starving for love, he is very lonely. In his protective shell, in his isolation he yearns for companionship; but because of the intensity of his craving for love he easily falls to excessive attachments. His love tends to become all-absorbing, exclusive, and jealous. Moreover, the intensity of his passionate craving for love and friendship has bodily reactions that can take form of temptations against purity.

AFTER A FEW AGONIZING EXPERIENCES OF THIS KIND, Aaron decides that it is safer and less painful not to have friends. He begins to realize that in his wishful thinking he has been idealizing people. He has been putting close friends on a pedestal and trying to capture them with a possessive love; but each time he finds himself frustrated and rejected because he has been loving a fantasy, a desert image. He does not know that love must be based on truth, on a mutual acceptance by two people of both the good and bad in each other.


Over achiever

Because Aaron feels, unconsciously, that he can win love and esteem, which he so craves, by accomplishing great things; he has a flare for bigness, extravagance, magnificence – anything that attracts attention and praise. Great deeds, colossal achievements are his goals in life. But these goals are often unrealistic, beyond his powers and abilities. He is an over-achiever. He is overly preoccupied with the idea of great success. He seems to be compensating for, filling in for something he feels he lacks. Is he a vainglorious operator? Maybe, but more likely he just doen’t love himself enough.