G.R. No. 124966 June 16, 1998
ALMA COSEP, MARILOU COQUIA, DULCEVITA SORIANO and MARY JANE RABORAR, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and PREMIERE DEVELOPMENT BANK, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were regular employees of Premiere Development Bank at its Guadalupe Branch. On November 17, 1994, the bank suspended their area manager, Gloria Doplito, for alleged malversation. In response, petitioners wrote and disseminated an “open letter” criticizing the bank’s handling of Doplito’s case, calling the decision “inconsiderate, unfair, biased, even inhuman,” and comparing it to another case where an employee “remained scot-free.” The bank required petitioners to explain the letter, suspended them, and withheld their 13th month pay and wages. Petitioners explained it was an exercise of freedom of speech. On January 20, 1995, the bank issued a memorandum dismissing them effective immediately for serious misconduct, specifically for undermining the bank’s interest by issuing malicious statements in violation of Rule IV of the Bank’s Code of Conduct. However, on January 23, 1995, the bank issued a “transfer of assignment” memorandum, temporarily suspending the dismissal order and reassigning them to other branches. Petitioners ignored the transfer orders, considering themselves dismissed as of January 20, and filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, and 13th month pay. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring illegal dismissal and awarding separation pay, backwages, damages, and unpaid benefits. The NLRC reversed this decision, deleting the awards for separation pay, backwages, and damages, and ruling that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed but were validly dismissed for insubordination due to their refusal to obey the lawful transfer orders.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s finding that petitioners were illegally dismissed.

RULING

Yes, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court granted the petition and set aside the NLRC decision. The Court held that petitioners were illegally dismissed. The purported ground for dismissal was insubordination for refusing the transfer orders. However, the Court found that the actual dismissal occurred on January 20, 1995, based on the “open letter,” as stated in the bank’s memorandum citing serious misconduct for violating the Bank’s Code of Conduct. The subsequent transfer orders did not validly lift the prior dismissal, as the bank failed to unequivocally communicate any such retraction to the employees. The dismissal was without just cause. The “open letter,” while critical, did not constitute serious misconduct warranting dismissal; it was an expression of grievance made in good faith. Furthermore, the bank failed to comply with procedural due process requirements for dismissal. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision, ordering the bank to pay petitioners separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement), backwages, unpaid wages, 13th month pay, and moral and exemplary damages.