G.R. No. 193789 - Naranjo vs. Biomedica Health Care, Inc.

Coinciding with Motol’s birthday, five petitioners were absent from work for various personal reasons:

Notably, these employees had previously filed a letter-complaint (October 31, 2006) with the DOLE against Biomedica for several grievances (e.g., lack of salary increases and non-remittance of SSS and Pag-IBIG contributions).

Upon receiving text messages to report for duty later on November 7, petitioners reported for work but were refused entry and told to seek employment elsewhere.
On November 8, 2006, petitioners attempted again to report for work but were barred from entering the premises.
Motol reportedly used foul language, telling petitioners to find another workplace.
On November 9, 2006, Biomedica issued a preventive suspension and a 24‑hour “notice to explain” accusing petitioners of engaging in an illegal strike.

Accusation that petitioners, in conspiracy with other employees, had deliberately organized an illegal strike that paralyzed the company’s operations, in contravention of Article XI, Category Four (Sections 6, 8, 12, 18, and 25) of the company policy.
Demand for a written explanation within 24 hours, linking the incident to the birthday of the company president.

On November 15, 2006, petitioners were personally served with the said Notices by Biomedica.
On November 29, 2006, Biomedica served Notices of Termination on petitioners for their failure to respond to the Notices.

Petitioners filed a complaint with the NLRC on November 20, 2006 for constructive dismissal, nonpayment of salaries, overtime pay, 13th month pay, and non-remittance of statutory contributions.
The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated March 31, 2008, dismissed the complaint on the basis that petitioners had engaged in a “mass leave” resembling a strike, thereby justifying their dismissal.
The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on November 21, 2008, declaring the petitioners as illegally dismissed and awarding separation pay (in lieu of reinstatement), backwages, commissions, and attorney’s fees, among other reliefs.
Biomedica sought reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC on January 30, 2009.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in decisions dated June 25, 2010 and September 20, 2010, annulled the NLRC’s modified decision and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision that petitioners were validly dismissed based on a “mass leave” constituting an illegal strike.

The evidence against petitioners included unsworn explanation letters from other employees (Angeles and Casimiro) and the company’s Notices which were shown to be deficient in complying with due process.
The CA held that the evidence showed a mass leave and intentional violation of company policy.
Petitioners, however, argued that their absences were individually valid leaves, that the required detailed notice and explanatory defenses under due process were not provided, and that dismissal should not be imposed without sufficient evidence of an illegal strike.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming facts not conclusively established or rebutted regarding the nature of petitioners’ absences.
Whether the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the Labor Arbiter’s ruling by failing to recognize that petitioners were denied both procedural and substantive due process.
Whether the CA improperly sustained the monetary awards and reliefs in light of the failure to prove that petitioners engaged in an illegal strike or a mass leave justifying dismissal.