GR 86000; (September, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 86000 September 21, 1990
GOLD CITY INTEGRATED PORT SERVICES, INC. (INPORT), petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) and JOSE L. BACALSO, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondent Jose Bacalso, an admeasurer for petitioner Gold City, was suspected of under-measuring cargo. A re-measurement confirmed a discrepancy. The following day, Bacalso confronted a co-worker, Nigel Mabalacad, who had performed the re-check, inside the office of their immediate superior, Chief Admeasurer Rolando Guanaco. Guanaco ordered Bacalso to stop provoking Mabalacad and to behave properly. Bacalso ignored this directive, and a fistfight ensued between him and Mabalacad. Bacalso was preventively suspended and initially charged with assaulting a co-employee and falsifying reports. The grievance committee could not agree on a penalty and referred the matter to management.
Management subsequently dismissed Bacalso, stating the grounds as assault on a co-employee and insubordination. Bacalso filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, admitting the assault but contesting the insubordination charge. He argued the assault was not a valid ground for dismissal under the Labor Code as it was not committed against the employer’s representative. The Labor Arbiter ruled the dismissal illegal, finding no evidence for insubordination and noting the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) prescribed only a 15-day suspension for assault. The NLRC affirmed the illegality but ordered reinstatement with backwages.
ISSUE
Whether private respondent Jose Bacalso was illegally dismissed.
RULING
Yes, the dismissal was illegal. The Supreme Court affirmed the NLRC’s finding but modified the penalty. The Court held that Bacalso was denied procedural due process because the charge of insubordination was not included in the initial accusations during the company investigation. He was only informed of this charge in his termination notice, depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to defend himself against it.
On the substantive aspect, the Court agreed that Bacalso’s actions constituted both assault and insubordination. By ignoring Guanaco’s direct order to cease provoking a co-worker and to behave properly in the office—a lawful order connected to maintaining workplace discipline—Bacalso committed an act of insubordination. However, termination was a disproportionately severe penalty. Applying the principle of proportionality in labor discipline, the Court held that a three-month suspension without pay was the appropriate sanction for the combined offenses. Consequently, Bacalso is entitled to reinstatement with backwages, deducting an amount equivalent to three months’ pay. If reinstatement is not feasible due to strained relations, he shall be given separation pay. The award of attorney’s fees was sustained.