CASE TITLE: Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc.

(Inport) vs Honorable National Labor

Relations Commission (NLRC) and Jose L. Bacalso
GR NO.: G.R. No. 86000
DATE: September 21, 1990

PETITIONER: Gold City Integrated Port Services, Inc. (Inport)

RESPONDENT: Honorable National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Jose L. Bacalso

DOCTRINES:
The right of an employee to procedural due process consists of the twin rights of notice and
hearing. The purpose of the requirement of notice is obviously to enable the employee to defend
himself against the charge preferred against him by presenting and substantiating his version of
the facts.

Not every case of insubordination or wilful disobedience by an employee of a lawful work-

connected order of the employer or its representative is reasonably penalized with dismissal. For
one thing, Article 282 refers to "serious misconduct or wilful disobedience". There must be
reasonable proportionality between, on the one hand, the wilful disobedience by the employee
and, on the other hand, the penalty imposed therefor.

FACTS. Private respondent Bacalso suspected by management of under measuring cargo. Hence, on 23
January 1987, the cargo control officer ordered two (2) other admeasurers to re-measure three (3) pallets
of bananas which had already been measured by private respondent. The re-measurement revealed that
respondent had under-measured the bananas by 1.427 cubic meters.

Private respondent felt insulted by the re-measurement so he confronted Nigel Mabalacad (one of the
admeasurers) in the presence of their superior who ordered them to stop but said confrontation still led to
fistfight. Private respondent Bacalso was then charged with assaulting a co-employee and falsifying
reports and records of the company relative to the performance of his duties, and was preventively
suspended until his termination on April 11, 1987 upon the grounds of assaulting a co-employee and of
insubordination.

Private respondent Bacalso filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the DOLE RAB 10 contending that
there was no evidence that he had 1illfully disobeyed any order given by his superior during the incident
1
and that assaulting a co-employee is not just cause for dismissal under Article 282 (d) of the Labor Code
because that act was not an offense committed against his employers duly authorized representative.

The LA ruled in favor of Bacalso stating that assault on a co-employee was punishable only with fifteen
(15) days suspension under the CBAs Schedule of penalties. The NLRC adopted the LA ruling but
ordered the reinstatement of Bacalso.

Before the Supreme Court, Gold City contented that managements prerogative to promulgate rules of
discipline and to enforce the Schedule of disciplinary sanctions providing for dismissal of an employee
who commits gross disrespect of a superior officer.

ISSUES: (a) Whether private respondent was denied due process in the course of his dismissal; and (b)
Whether private respondent was dismissed for a just cause.

1
Art. 282. Termination by Employer.-An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: a) Serious
misconduct or wilful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work
RULING:

A. Yes. Correct specification of private respondent's alleged wrongdoing was obviously important here,
since the penalty that could appropriately be meted out depended upon what offense was charged and
proven. It has been stressed by the Court that the right of an employee to procedural due process
16
consists of the twin rights of notice and hearing. The purpose of the requirement of notice is obviously
to enable the employee to defend himself against the charge preferred against him by presenting and
substantiating his version of the facts. Since Gold City here in effect charged private respondent with a
second offense other than falsification of company records, it was incumbent upon petitioner employer to
have given private respondent additional time and opportunity to meet the new charge against him of
insubordination. Gold City failed to do that here. In so failing, Gold City failed to accord to private
respondent the full measure of his right to procedural due process. The fact that in the proceedings
before the Labor Arbiter the conduct of private respondent that petitioner regarded as insubordination was
substantiated, does not militate against this conclusion.

B. No. Though the Court ruled that private respondent's act constituted wilful disobedience to a lawful
order of petitioner's representative, it nonetheless ruled that he was unlawfully terminated either under
Article 282 (a) of the Labor Code or under the CBA Schedule of penalties.

The Court ruled that not every case of insubordination or wilful disobedience by an employee of a lawful
work-connected order of the employer or its representative is reasonably penalized with dismissal. For
one thing, Article 282 refers to "serious misconduct or wilful disobedience". There must be reasonable
proportionality between, on the one hand, the wilful disobedience by the employee and, on the other
hand, the penalty imposed therefor. Examination of the circumstances surrounding private respondent's
assault upon his co-employee shows that no serious or substantial danger had been posed by that
fistfight to the well-being of his other co-employees or of the general public doing business with petitioner
employer; and neither did such behavior threaten substantial prejudice for the business of his employer.
The fistfight occurred inside the offices of the Surveyors' Division, more particularly, Mr. Guangco's office,
away from the view of petitioner's customers or of the general public.