LABOR - BASCON VS CA Digest
LABOR - BASCON VS CA Digest
Petitioners
ELIZABETH C. BASCON and NOEMI V. COLE, again claimed they did not receive said order.
petitioners, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Petitioners Bascon and Cole were then served
METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., and notices terminating their employment effective
GREGORIO IYOY, respondents. April 12, 1996 and April 19, 1996, respectively.
Bascon and Cole filed a complaint for illegal
FACTS: dismissal.
THE LABOR ARBITER found the termination
The petitioners in the instant case were complained of to be valid and legal, and
employees of private respondent Metro Cebu dismissed the complaint.
Community Hospital, Inc. (MCCH) and members o The Labor Arbiter held that petitioners
of the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Metro Cebu were justly dismissed because they
Community Hospital (NAMAMCCH), a labor actually participated in the illegal mass
union of MCCH employees. action. It also concluded that petitioners
Petitioner Elizabeth C. Bascon had been received the notices of hearing, but
employed as a nurse by respondent MCCH since deliberately refused to attend the
May 1984. At the time of her termination from scheduled investigation.
employment in April 1996, she already held the In its Decision5 dated November 25, 1998, the
position of Head Nurse. The other petitioner, NLRC, 4th Division reversed the ruling of the
Noemi V. Cole, had been working as a nursing Labor Arbiter and ordered the reinstatement of
aide. petitioners with full backwages.
Both petitioners were dismissed by the The appellate court (CA) held that Bascon and
Cole were validly terminated for their gross
respondent hospital for allegedly
insubordination or willful disobedience as:
participating in an illegal strike.
The instant controversy arose from an intra
union conflict between the NAMAMCCH and 1. The order for petitioners to
refrain from wearing armbands and putting up
the National Labor Federation (NFL), the
mother federation of NAMAMCCH. In placards was legal, fair and reasonable.
November 1995, NAMAMCCH asked MCCH to
renew their Collective Bargaining Agreement 2. The order was connected with
(CBA), which was set to expire on December 31, the duties, which the petitioners had been
1995. NFL, however, opposed this move by its engaged to discharge.
local affiliate.
o Which led to the members and officers of 3. Said order was sufficiently
NAMAMCCH staged a series of mass made known to petitioners as receipt of the
actions inside MCCH’s premises starting same by the latter was convincingly
February 27, 1996. substantiated by hard evidence.
the MCCH management received reports that
petitioners participated in NAMAMCCH’s mass ISSUE:
actions. Consequently, notices were served on all
union members, petitioners included, asking Whether or not petitioners were validly
them to explain in writing why they were
terminated for (1) allegedly participating in an
wearing red and black ribbons and roaming
illegal strike and/or (2) gross insubordination to
around the hospital with placards. The union
members, including petitioners, explained that the order to stop wearing armbands and putting
wearing armbands and putting up placards was up placards. (NO)
their answer to MCCH’s illegal refusal to
negotiate with NAMAMCCH. RULING:
Subsequently, MCCH notified the petitioners
that they were to be investigated for their WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
activities in the mass actions, with the hearings Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP
being scheduled. Petitioners, however, denied No. 51690 dated March 13, 2000 is REVERSED.
receiving said notices. In a notice dated April 8, Private respondent Metro Cebu Community
1996, MCCH ordered petitioners to desist from Hospital is hereby ordered to reinstate
participating in the mass actions conducted in petitioners Noemi V. Cole and Elizabeth C.
the hospital premises with a warning that non Bascon without loss of seniority rights and other
compliance therewith would result in the privileges and to pay them full backwages,
inclusive of allowances, and other benefits (2) the order violated must have been
computed from the time they were dismissed up reasonable, lawful, made known to the
to the time of their actual reinstatement. employee and must pertain to the duties
No pronouncement as to costs. which he had been engaged to
SO ORDERED. discharge.15
In this case, we find lacking the element of
willfulness characterized by a perverse
RATIO: mental attitude on the part of petitioners
in disobeying their employer’s order as to
As to the first ground (allegedly participating in warrant the ultimate penalty of dismissal.
an illegal strike), Article 264 (a) of the Labor Wearing armbands and putting up placards
Code provides in part that: to express one’s views without violating the
o . . . Any union officer who knowingly
rights of third parties, are legal per se and
participates in illegal strike and any even constitutionally protected. Thus,
worker or union officer who knowingly MCCH could have done well to respect
participates in the commission of illegal petitioners’ right to freedom of speech instead of
acts during a strike may be declared to threatening them with disciplinary action and
have lost his employment status . . . eventually terminating them.
Thus, while a union officer can be terminated for Neither are we convinced that petitioners’
mere participation in an illegal strike, an exercise of the right to freedom of speech should
ordinary striking employee, like petitioners be taken in conjunction with the illegal acts
herein, must have participated in the committed by other union members in the course
of the series of mass actions.
commission of illegal acts during the strike
o It bears stressing that said illegal acts
(italics supplied). There must be proof that
were committed by other union
they committed illegal acts during the
members after petitioners were already
strike. 14
terminated, not during the time that the
In this case, the Court of Appeals found that
latter wore armbands and put up
petitioners’ actual participation in the illegal
placards.
strike was limited to wearing armbands and
Finally, even if willful disobedience may be
putting up placards. There was no finding
properly appreciated, still, the penalty of
that the armbands or the placards
dismissal is too harsh. Not every case of
contained offensive words or symbols.
willful disobedience by an employee of a lawful
Thus, neither such wearing of armbands
workconnected order of the employer may be
nor said putting up of placards can be penalized with dismissal.
fact, per
construed as an illegal act. In There must be reasonable proportionality
se, they are within the mantle of constitutional between, on the one hand, the willful
protection under freedom of speech. disobedience by the employee and, on the other
As regards the appellate court’s finding that hand, the penalty imposed therefor.16
petitioners were justly terminated for gross In this case, evidence is wanting on the
insubordination or willful disobedience, Article depravity of conduct and willfulness of the
282 of the Labor Code provides in part: disobedience on the part of petitioners, as
o An employer may terminate an contemplated by law. Wearing armbands to
employment for any of the following signify union membership and putting up
causes: placards to express their views cannot be of such
(a) Serious misconduct or willful great dimension as to warrant the extreme
disobedience by the employee of the penalty of dismissal, especially considering the
lawful orders of his employer or long years of service rendered by petitioners
representative in connection with his
work.
However, willful disobedience of the
employer’s lawful orders, as a just cause for
dismissal of an employee, envisages the
concurrence of at least two requisites:
o 1) the employee’s assailed conduct must
have been willful, that is, characterized
by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and