G.R. No. 144899. February 5, 2004.* imposition of disciplinary measures.

 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