Case Summary (G.R. No. 171927)
Factual Background
Leonilo Burgos commenced employment with Kepco Philippines Corporation, a subsidiary of Korea Electric Power Corporation operating the Malaya Thermal Power Plant in Rizal, as a first-class turbine operator in January 1996. He later became the president of the Kephilco Malaya Employees Union, representing the rank-and-file employees. In November 2002, a goodwill gesture by the company president granted employees US$1,000, which Burgos accepted on behalf of the union. During a union meeting in February 2003, he made remarks regarding this gift, asserting its intact status while juxtaposing it against a past conditional offer regarding a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Following these comments, the company initiated an investigation leading to an administrative charge against him for violating specific sections of its Company Code of Employee Discipline.
Administrative Proceedings and Dismissal
In response to the company's claims of misconduct and discredit, Burgos defended himself, recalling a conversation with the personnel manager about a fictitious bribe concerning the CBA. The respondent's case against him ultimately rested on his supposed violation of company policies regarding actions that might cause prejudice to the company. After conducting a hearing, the company found him guilty and terminated his employment, citing serious misconduct entailing damage to the company's reputation.
Initial Labor Arbiter's Decision
Following unsuccessful mediation, Burgos filed a complaint asserting illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and damages. The labor arbiter upheld the dismissal's legality but granted Burgos separation pay as a remedy, reflecting a percentage based on his years of service. This decision acknowledged the harshness of dismissal while considering the broader context of labor relations and the significance of a second chance where appropriate.
NLRC Reversal
Burgos and the union appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the labor arbiter's decision, rejecting the dismissal and ordering reinstatement with back wages. The NLRC concluded that Burgos’ comments, while possibly contentious, did not rise to the level of serious misconduct as defined by law, given the context of his leadership position within the union.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The respondent subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the company, reinstating the dismissal by deeming Burgos’ comments as serious misconduct. The Court of Appeals defined serious misconduct as an established breach reflecting wrongful intent, asserting that Burgos’ remarks posed a genuine threat to industrial peace.
Supreme Court Decision
Upon review, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals’ ruling. It determined that the remarks made by Burgos occurred within the bounds of legitimate union discourse, without the requisite intent to discredit the company or incite unrest. It emphasized that seri
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 171927)
Case Overview
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines, Second Division
- Date: June 29, 2007
- Case Number: G.R. No. 171927
- Petitioners: Kephilco Malaya Employees Union and Leonilo Burgos
- Respondent: Kepco Philippines Corporation
Background of the Case
- Respondent, Kepco Philippines Corporation, is a subsidiary of Korea Electric Power Corporation engaged in independent power generation, specifically operating the Malaya Thermal Power Plant in Pililla, Rizal.
- Leonilo Burgos was employed as a first-class turbine operator on January 16, 1996, with a salary of P38,758. He later became the president of the union representing the rank-and-file employees.
- In November 2002, as a goodwill gesture, the president of KEPCO awarded US$1,000 to the employees, which Burgos accepted on behalf of the union.
- During a union meeting on February 7, 2003, Burgos made controversial remarks regarding the US$1,000 gift, suggesting it was small compared to a previous offer of a KIA vehicle plus P700,000 related to Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) negotiations.
Administrative Proceedings
- Following Burgos' remarks, the respondent initiated an investigation that resulted in administrative charges against him based on violations of the Company Code of Employee Discipline, specifically:
- Section 7.33: Engaging in activities that cause damage to the company.
- Section 7.34: Disseminating communications that discredit the company.
- Burgos defended himself by recounting a past conversation with the personnel manager regarding the KIA offer, which the respondent disputed without providing written evidence.