Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 310 views

    Naranjo v. Biomedica (GR 193789)

    Uploaded by

    rubdr
    Petitioners were former employees of Biomedica Healthcare who were absent from work for personal reasons. When they reported back to work after receiving text messages, they were refused entry and told to find new jobs. Biomedica issued notices accusing the petitioners of an illegal strike without specifying the acts that constituted the illegal strike. The court ruled that the petitioners were illegally dismissed because Biomedica failed to establish that the employees violated any company rules or were guilty of any wrongdoing. Biomedica did not afford the petitioners procedural or substantive due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Naranjo v. Biomedica (GR 193789)

    Uploaded by

    rubdr
    310 views2 pages
    Petitioners were former employees of Biomedica Healthcare who were absent from work for personal reasons. When they reported back to work after receiving text messages, they were refused entry and told to find new jobs. Biomedica issued notices accusing the petitioners of an illegal strike without specifying the acts that constituted the illegal strike. The court ruled that the petitioners were illegally dismissed because Biomedica failed to establish that the employees violated any company rules or were guilty of any wrongdoing. Biomedica did not afford the petitioners procedural or substantive due process.

    Original Title

    Naranjo v. Biomedica (GR 193789).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioners were former employees of Biomedica Healthcare who were absent from work for personal reasons. When they reported back to work after receiving text messages, they were refused entry and told to find new jobs. Biomedica issued notices accusing the petitioners of an illegal strike without specifying the acts that constituted the illegal strike. The court ruled that the petitioners were illegally dismissed because Biomedica failed to establish that the employees violated any company rules or were guilty of any wrongdoing. Biomedica did not afford the petitioners procedural or substantive due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    310 views2 pages

    Naranjo v. Biomedica (GR 193789)

    Uploaded by

    rubdr
    Petitioners were former employees of Biomedica Healthcare who were absent from work for personal reasons. When they reported back to work after receiving text messages, they were refused entry and told to find new jobs. Biomedica issued notices accusing the petitioners of an illegal strike without specifying the acts that constituted the illegal strike. The court ruled that the petitioners were illegally dismissed because Biomedica failed to establish that the employees violated any company rules or were guilty of any wrongdoing. Biomedica did not afford the petitioners procedural or substantive due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Naranjo v. Biomedica Healthcare, Inc.

    G.R. No. 193789 | Sept. 19, 2012

    FACTS:
    Petitioners were former employees of Biomedica, one Motol,
    is the President. Petitioners were all absent for various personal
    reasons. Later that day, petitioners reported for work after
    receiving text messages for them to proceed to Biomedica. They
    were, however, refused entry and told to start looking for another
    workplace. Biomedica issued a notice of preventive suspension
    and notices to explain within 24-hour Notices to petitioners. In the
    Notices, Biomedica accused petitioners of having conducted an
    illegal strike and were accordingly directed to explain why they
    should not be held guilty of and dismissed for violating the
    company policy against illegal strikes.

    ISSUE:
    WON Petitioners were illegally dismissed (YES)

    RULING:
    Yes, petitioners were illegally dismissed. This is because the
    fundamental law of the land guarantees security of tenure. It
    bears pointing out that in the dismissal of an employee,
    the law requires that due process be observed. Such due
    process requirement is twofold, procedural and substantive, that
    is, “the termination of employment must be based on a just or
    authorized cause of dismissal and the dismissal must be effected
    after due notice and hearing.”
    In the instant case, petitioners were not afforded both
    procedural and substantive due process. Clearly, petitioners were
    charged with conducting an illegal strike, not a mass leave,
    without specifying the exact acts that the company considers as
    constituting an illegal strike or violative of company policies. Such
    allegation falls short of the requirement in King of Kings
    Transport, Inc. of “a detailed narration of the facts and
    circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against the
    employees.” A bare mention of an “illegal strike” will not suffice.
    In any event, petitioners were also not afforded substantive due
    process, that is, they were illegally dismissed.
    Clearly, to justify the dismissal of an employee on the
    ground of serious misconduct, the employer must first establish
    that the employee is guilty of improper conduct, that the
    employee violated an existing and valid company rule or
    regulation, or that the employee is guilty of a wrongdoing. In the
    instant case, Biomedica to even establish that petitioners indeed
    violated company rules, failing to even present a copy of the rules
    and to prove that petitioners were made aware of such
    regulations. In fact, from the records of the case, Biomedica has
    failed to prove that petitioners are guilty of a wrongdoing that is
    punishable with termination from employment.
    Given the illegality of their dismissal, petitioners are entitled
    to reinstatement and backwages as provided in Art. 279 of the
    Labor Code.

    You might also like