Facts:

The case involves the petitioners Autobus Workers Union (AWU) and Ricardo Escanlar against the respondents National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Mr. Robert Ong. The events leading to this case began on January 29, 1993, when Ricardo Escanlar, who had been employed as a Cutting Machine Operator at Autobus Industries, Inc. since January 8, 1981, was reassigned to the Washer Section due to a lack of manpower. Escanlar, who was also the president of the AWU, expressed dissatisfaction with this transfer and engaged in a series of confrontational exchanges with his supervisor, Reynaldo T. Andres. These exchanges included the use of profane language and threats, which were documented in a report by Andres. Following these incidents, Escanlar was required to explain his behavior, leading to an administrative investigation. On April 19, 1993, he received a Notice of Termination for gross misconduct, specifically for his disrespectful remarks and threats towards his supervisor...

Facts:

1. Employment Background:

   • Petitioner Ricardo E. Escanlar worked as a Cutting Machine Operator at Autobus Industries, Inc. since January 8, 1981, earning a daily wage of P162.16.
   • He received two Plaques of Appreciation as a Model Employee in 1987 and as a Valuable Employee in 1988.
   • He was elected President of the Autobus Workers’ Union (AWU), the union for rank-and-file employees.

2. Incident Leading to Dismissal:

   • On January 29, 1993, Escanlar was reassigned from the Cutting Section to the Washer Section due to a lack of manpower.
   • Escanlar questioned the transfer, claiming it was unjustified and constituted harassment.
   • During the day, Escanlar repeatedly used profane language against his supervisor, Reynaldo T. Andres, including calling him "Gago Ka" and "Tang Ina Mo."
   • Escanlar also made threatening remarks, such as "Panapanahon lang yan, panahon mo ngayon" and "Patunayan mong minura kita at kung hindi, tandaan mo yan."

3. Administrative Proceedings:

   • On February 5, 1993, Escanlar was issued a memorandum requiring him to explain his actions within 48 hours.
   • A hearing was conducted on February 17, 1993, and continued on March 12, 1993.
   • On April 19, 1993, Escanlar was served a Notice of Termination for gross misconduct, specifically for uttering unsavory remarks and threatening his supervisor.

4. Labor Arbiter’s Decision:

   • The Labor Arbiter found Escanlar’s dismissal valid, citing violations of the company’s Code of Discipline.
   • The Arbiter noted that Escanlar’s transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
   • Escanlar’s repeated use of profane language and threats constituted gross misconduct, justifying his dismissal.

5. NLRC Resolution:

   • The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision, finding no unfair labor practice or violation of due process.

Issue:

1. Whether Escanlar’s dismissal was valid due to gross misconduct.
2. Whether the transfer of Escanlar to the Washer Section was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
3. Whether the dismissal constituted unfair labor practice due to Escanlar’s union presidency.
4. Whether the administrative proceedings violated Escanlar’s right to due process.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)