This case clarifies the extent to which employees can engage in protest activities during labor disputes without facing dismissal. The Supreme Court ruled that wearing armbands and putting up placards, absent offensive content or disruption, are protected forms of expression. This decision reinforces that employees cannot be penalized for exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech during labor actions, provided their actions do not violate the rights of others or disrupt essential operations. Even participation in an illegal strike does not justify termination unless the employee committed specific illegal acts. Ultimately, the court prioritized employee rights to express grievances over the employer’s disciplinary actions, emphasizing the need for proportionality in penalties.

Striking a Balance: When Union Activities Meet Hospital Operations

The case of Elizabeth C. Bascon and Noemi V. Cole vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, Metro Cebu Community Hospital, Inc., and Gregorio Iyoy, G.R. No. 144899, revolves around the dismissal of two hospital employees for participating in what the employer deemed an illegal strike. Elizabeth Bascon, a head nurse, and Noemi Cole, a nursing aide, were terminated by Metro Cebu Community Hospital (MCCH) for allegedly participating in mass actions, including wearing armbands and putting up placards, during an intra-union conflict. The central legal question is whether these actions constituted just cause for termination under the Labor Code, specifically whether they amounted to participation in an illegal strike or gross insubordination.

The controversy stemmed from a dispute between the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Metro Cebu Community Hospital (NAMA-MCCH) and its mother federation, the National Labor Federation (NFL), regarding the renewal of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with MCCH. Believing their union was the legitimate bargaining agent, NAMA-MCCH members staged mass actions, including marching around the hospital premises with streamers and placards. MCCH management then issued notices to union members, including Bascon and Cole, to explain their participation. Subsequently, the hospital terminated their employment for alleged involvement in the mass actions, claiming it disrupted hospital operations and created an atmosphere of animosity. The Labor Arbiter initially upheld the dismissal, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, ordering reinstatement with backwages. The Court of Appeals, however, sided with MCCH, reversing the NLRC decision.

The Supreme Court addressed whether the Court of Appeals erred in overturning the NLRC’s factual findings. It acknowledged that while the NLRC’s factual findings are generally binding, a departure from this rule is warranted when the NLRC’s findings contradict those of the Labor Arbiter. In such cases, the Court may examine the records to determine which findings are more consistent with the evidence, as cited in Corporal, Sr. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129315. The Court clarified that while the special civil action of certiorari is the mode of judicial review, the Court of Appeals is the more appropriate forum in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts and that, in the exercise of this power, the Court of Appeals can review the factual findings or the legal conclusions of the NLRC, as stated in St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, 356 Phil. 811 (1998).

Turning to the grounds for termination, the Court examined whether Bascon and Cole were validly dismissed for participating in an illegal strike or for gross insubordination. Article 264 (a) of the Labor Code states 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…

The Supreme Court emphasized that while a union officer can be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike, an ordinary employee must have participated in illegal acts during the strike. In this case, the Court found that Bascon and Cole’s participation was limited to wearing armbands and putting up placards, which, absent offensive content, are protected under freedom of speech. The Court acknowledged the illegal acts committed by unidentified union members but held that Bascon and Cole could not be held responsible for acts they did not commit. Thus, participation alone, without evidence of specific illegal actions, is insufficient ground for termination.

Regarding gross insubordination, Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that:

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, the Court emphasized that willful disobedience requires two elements: (1) the employee’s conduct must be willful, characterized by a wrongful and perverse attitude, and (2) the order violated must be reasonable, lawful, made known to the employee, and pertain to the duties they were engaged to discharge, as cited in Dimabayao v. NLRC, 363 Phil. 279, 284 (1999). The Court found the element of willfulness lacking in this case. Wearing armbands and putting up placards to express one’s views without violating the rights of third parties is legal and constitutionally protected. Even if disobedience were established, the Court deemed dismissal too harsh a penalty, considering the long years of service of Bascon and Cole and the absence of prior disciplinary actions. The termination was therefore deemed illegal, entitling the employees to reinstatement and full backwages, as guaranteed under Article 279 of the Labor Code.

Addressing MCCH’s argument that reinstatement was no longer feasible due to strained relations, the Court cited Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corporation, 354 Phil. 112 (1998), stating that the doctrine of strained relations is inapplicable when the employee has no say in the operation of the employer’s business. As a nurse and nursing aide, Bascon and Cole did not have such prerogative. The Court reaffirmed the need to strictly apply the doctrine of “strained relations” to protect labor’s security of tenure and prevent the unjust denial of reinstatement to illegally dismissed employees.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the dismissal of hospital employees for participating in union activities (wearing armbands, putting up placards) constituted illegal dismissal under the Labor Code.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that the employees’ actions were protected forms of expression and did not constitute just cause for termination, ordering their reinstatement and payment of backwages.
What constitutes an illegal act during a strike?	An illegal act during a strike involves actions that violate the law or infringe upon the rights of others, such as violence, coercion, or obstruction of access to the employer’s premises.
What is gross insubordination?	Gross insubordination involves willful disobedience of a lawful and reasonable order of the employer related to the employee’s duties, characterized by a perverse attitude.
What is the doctrine of strained relations?	The doctrine of strained relations suggests that reinstatement is not feasible when the relationship between the employer and employee has become irreparably damaged due to the labor dispute.
When does the doctrine of strained relations NOT apply?	The doctrine of strained relations does not apply when the employee has no control or influence over the management and operation of the employer’s business.
What are the remedies for illegal dismissal?	Remedies for illegal dismissal include reinstatement to the former position without loss of seniority rights and the payment of full backwages, allowances, and other benefits.
Can employees be terminated for participating in a legal strike?	No, employees cannot be terminated for participating in a legal strike, as it is a protected right under the Labor Code, unless they commit illegal acts during the strike.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting employees’ rights to freedom of expression during labor disputes. Employers must exercise caution when disciplining employees for union activities, ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the offense and that employees are not penalized for exercising their constitutional rights. The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding labor rights and ensuring fair treatment of employees in the workplace.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Bascon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144899, February 05, 2004