Short answer. Not under the specific 'crime against a person' ground in Article 282, which names only crimes against the employer, an immediate family member of the employer, or the employer's duly authorized representatives. An offense against an ordinary coworker outside that list is not covered by this particular clause, though other listed causes may still apply depending on the facts.
What the law says
Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; 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 representatives; and Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Labor Code, Article 282 — Just Causes For Dismissal. Read the full provision →
The clause is written narrowly by design
Article 282 lists, as one of several just causes for dismissal, 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 representatives. The wording names three specific categories of victim: the employer personally, an immediate family member of the employer, or someone the employer has duly authorized to represent it. A coworker who does not fit any of those three categories is not covered by this particular clause simply by virtue of also being an employee at the same company.
Why an ordinary coworker usually falls outside it
Most rank-and-file coworkers are neither the employer, an immediate family member of the employer, nor someone holding a role as the employer's duly authorized representative. A crime committed against such a coworker, however serious, does not automatically satisfy the specific language of this clause, which was written around harm directed at the employer or people standing in a defined relationship to the employer, not at the workforce generally.
Other grounds in the same article may still be relevant
This does not mean an employee who commits a crime against a coworker is necessarily protected from dismissal altogether. Article 282 lists other just causes in the same breath, including serious misconduct, and closes with other causes analogous to the foregoing. Depending on the facts, an offense against a coworker could potentially be evaluated under one of those other listed causes rather than under the crime-against-the-employer clause specifically, though which cause actually fits depends on circumstances this article does not itself resolve.
What this article does not do
Article 282 does not define which representatives count as 'duly authorized,' nor does it state what happens when an incident involves both a coworker and, incidentally, some connection to the employer or its representatives. It also does not describe the procedural steps an employer must follow before dismissing someone. Those questions go beyond what this specific clause establishes, which is limited to identifying who the victim must be for this particular just cause to apply.