Digest: G.R. No. 144899: Elizabeth C. Bascon and Noemi V. Cole v. Honorable Court of Appeals

 Elizabeth C. Bascon and Noemi V. Cole v. Honorable Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 144899 | February 5, 2004

Quisumbing, J. 

 

Facts:

This petition for review on certiorari assails the Court of Appeals’ Decision holding Elizabeth Bascon and Noemi Cole validly terminated for their gross insubordination or willful disobedience performed towards Metro Cebu Community Hospital.

 

The petitioners in the instant case were employees of private respondent Metro Cebu Community Hospital, Inc. (MCCH) and members of the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Metro Cebu Community Hospital (NAMA-MCCH), a labor union of MCCH employees. Petitioner Elizabeth C. Bascon had been employed as a nurse by respondent MCCH since May 1984. At the time of her termination from employment in April 1996, she already held the position of Head Nurse. The other petitioner, Noemi V. Cole, had been working as a nursing aide with MCCH since August 1974. Both petitioners were dismissed by the respondent hospital for allegedly participating in an illegal strike.

 

MCCH then notified the petitioners that they were to be investigated for their activities in the mass actions. Petitioners, however, denied receiving said notices. MCCH then ordered petitioners to desist from participating in the mass actions conducted in the hospital premises with a warning that non-compliance therewith would result in the imposition of disciplinary measures. Petitioners again claimed they did not receive said order. Petitioners Bascon and Cole were then served notices terminating their employment.

 

Bascon and Cole filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. They denied having participated in said mass actions or having received the notices (1) enjoining them from wearing armbands and putting up placards, with warning that disciplinary measure would be imposed, and (2) informing them of the schedule of hearing. They admit, however, to wearing armbands for union identity while nursing patients as per instruction of their union leaders.

 

The Labor Arbiter held that petitioners were justly dismissed because they actually participated in the illegal mass action. 

 

The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ordered the reinstatement of petitioners with full back wages.

 

The CA reversed the decision of the NLRC however ordered MCCH to pay Bascon and Cole separation pay.

 

Issue/s:

Whether or not petitioners were validly terminated for (1) allegedly participating in an illegal strike and/or (2) gross insubordination to the order to stop wearing armbands and putting up placards.

 

Ruling:

NO, the petitioners were not validly terminated.

 

Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code provides in part that:

“…Any union officer who knowingly participates in illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have lost his employment status…”

 

Thus, while a union officer can be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike, an ordinary striking employee, like petitioners herein, must have participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. There must be proof that they committed illegal acts during the strike. But proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required.  Substantial evidence, which may justify the imposition of the penalty of dismissal, may suffice.

 

In this case, the Court of Appeals found that petitioners’ actual participation in the illegal strike was limited to wearing armbands and putting up placards. There was no finding that the armbands or the placards contained offensive words or symbols. Thus, neither such wearing of armbands nor said putting up of placards can be construed as an illegal act. 

 

As regards the appellate court’s finding that petitioners were justly terminated for gross insubordination or willful disobedience, Article 282 of the Labor Code provides in part: “An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or 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: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee and must pertain to the duties which he had been engaged to discharge

 

In this case, we find lacking the element of willfulness characterized by a perverse mental attitude on the part of petitioners in disobeying their employer’s order as to warrant the ultimate penalty of dismissal. Wearing armbands and putting up placards to express one’s views without violating the rights of third parties, are legal per se and even constitutionally protected. Thus, MCCH could have done well to respect petitioners’ right to freedom of speech instead of threatening them with disciplinary action and eventually terminating them.