Naranjo Vs Biomedica

 

G.R. No. 193789 : September 19, 2012 VELASCO, JR., J.: ALEX Q. NARANJO, ONNAL!N E G"#$AN, RONAL V. CR"#, ROSE$AR%E &. &%$EN'EL, ()* RO+ENA . ARAJE,&et-t-o)er, /. %O$E%CA EAL' CARE, %NC. ()* CAR%NA AREN J. $O'OL, Repo)*e)t.

FACTS: Petitioners Alex Naranjo (Naranjo), Ronald Allan Cruz, Rowena Bardaje, Donnalyn De uz!an and Rose!arie Pi!entel were all e!"loyees o# Bio!edi$a %ealt& Care, 'n$ (Bio!edi$a) n No*e!+er , -../, Naranjo, et al were all a+sent #or *arious "ersonal reasons T&e next day, Naranjo, et al $a!e in #or wor0 +ut were not allowed to enter t&e "re!ises Carina 1otol (1otol), Bio!edi$as "resident, in#or!ed t&e! usin2 #oul lan2ua2e, to just #ind ot&er e!"loy!ent Su+se3uently, Bio!edi$a issued noti$es to Naranjo, et al a$$usin2 t&e! o# &a*in2 $ondu$ted an ille2al stri0e and were a$$ordin2ly dire$ted to ex"lain wit&in twenty4 #our (-5) &ours to ex"lain w&y t&ey s&ould not +e &eld 2uilty o# and dis!issed #or *iolatin2 t&e $o!"any "oli$y a2ainst ille2al stri0es under Arti$le 6', Cate2ory Four, Se$tions /, 7, 8-, 87 and -9 o# t&e Co!"any Poli$yBio!edi$a, &owe*er, #ailed to #urnis& t&e! wit& t&e $o"y o# t&e said $o!"any "oli$y Naranjo, et al #ailed to su+!it t&eir written ex"lanation T&us, Bio!edi$a ser*ed Noti$es o# Ter!ination statin2 t&at Naranjo, et al en2a2ed in ille2al stri0e Conse3uently, Naranjo et al #iled a $o!"laint #or ille2al dis!issal T&e A dis!issed t&e $o!"laint T&e NRC re*ersed t&e A n a""eal to t&e CA, t&e CA reinstated t&e de$ision o# t&e A ISSUE: Whether or not Naranjo, et al. were illegally dismissed?

EL: 'e pet-t-o) - mer-tor-o4. LAOR LA+: -55e6(5 *-m-(5 m( 5e(/e tr-e Petitioners were not a##orded "ro$edural due "ro$essT&us, t&e Court ela+orated in ;in2 o# ;in2s Trans"ort, 'n$ * 1a!a$ t&at a !ere 2eneral des$ri"tion o# t&e $&ar2es a2ainst an e!"loyee +y t&e e!"loyer is insu##i$ient to $o!"ly wit& t&e a+o*e "ro*isions o# t&e law Clearly, "etitioners were $&ar2ed wit& $ondu$tin2 an ille2al stri0e, not a !ass lea*e, wit&out s"e$i#yin2 t&e exa$t a$ts t&at t&e $o!"any $onsiders as $onstitutin2 an ille2al stri0e or *iolati*e o# $o!"any "oli$ies Furt&er, w&ile Bio!edi$a $ites t&e "ro*isions o# t&e $o!"any "oli$y w&i$& "etitioners "ur"ortedly *iolated, it #ailed to 3uote said "ro*isions in t&e noti$e so "etitioners $an +e ade3uately in#or!ed o# t&e nature o# t&e $&ar2es a2ainst t&e! and intelli2ently #ile t&eir ex"lanation and de#enses to said a$$usations 1oreo*er, t&e "eriod o# -5 &ours allotted to "etitioners to answer t&e noti$e was se*erely insu##i$ient and in *iolation o# t&e i!"le!entin2 rules o# t&e a+or Code