The complainant in the case was the president of the rank and file union in respondent company. He worked with the company as a Cutting Machine Operator since January 8, 1981.  He was the recipient of two (2) plaques of appreciation as Model Employee in 1987 and as Valuable Employee in 1988.

In the morning of January 29, 1993, the supervisor of complainant told the latter that he will be reassigned to the other section of the company which lacks manpower.  Complainant questioned his transfer and refused to wear the goggles required to be used in the Washer Section where he was transferred.  Sometime later, complainant confronted his supervisor and accused the latter of partiality in choosing the employees who will render overtime.  In the course of their confrontation, complainant shouted "Gago Ka!" [You are a crook] to his supervisor.  This same invective was repeated by complainant when the supervisor invited him to his office to iron out their difference.  The supervisor left complainant to avoid further confrontation.

Later on the same day, complainant continued to stare at his supervisor and when the latter asked him what his problem was, complainant retorted by saying:  "Bakit anong gusto mo, 'tang ina mo." [What do you want? You son of a bitch!].  To avoid further confrontation, the supervisor just left.  In the afternoon of the same day, complainant met the supervisor in the company canteen and he told the latter:  "Patunayan mong minura kita at kung hindi, tandaan mo 'yan."

On February 5, 1993, the Production Manager, acting on the written complaint of the supervisor, issued a memorandum to the complainant requiring him to explain in writing within 48 hours from receipt thereof why no disciplinary action should be taken against him pursuant to the company's Code of Discipline for addressing his supervisor in profane or obscene language and for threatening him.  To this memorandum, the complainant complied by submitting his written explanation.  Subsequently, a hearing was conducted and thereafter, complainant was dismissed for gross misconduct, i.e., uttering unsavory remarks and threatening his supervisor with physical harm.

A case for illegal termination was filed with the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC].  Both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, however, ruled that the dismissal was valid. The complainant elevated the case to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

In upholding the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, the Supreme Court ruled:

   On the issue of whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when they allegedly overlooked and misconstrued certain facts, the Supreme Court held:

    "It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that factual findings of the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, are accorded respect, even finality, and will not be disturbed for as long as such findings are supported by substantial evidence.  In the instant case, we have no reason to deviate from this policy as petitioner failed to convince us that the findings of the Labor Arbiter as affirmed by the NLRC are devoid of basis or are otherwise capricious or arbitrary."
[citations omitted]

   On serious misconduct:

    "Misconduct is improper or wrong conduct.  It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.  The misconduct must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.  The charge of serious misconduct finds ample support in the record.  Petitioner [complainant] failed to satisfactorily rebut this accusation, his only defense being self-serving denials.

    "The repeated utterances by petitioner of obscene, insulting or offensive words against a superior were not only destructive of the morale of his co-employees and a violation of the company rules and regulations, but also constitute gross misconduct which is one of the grounds provided for by law to terminate the services of an employee. His attitude toward his supervisor amounted to insubordination and conduct unbecoming of an employee which merited the penalty of dismissal.

    "Suffice it to state that an employee may be validly dismissed for violation of a reasonable company rule or regulation adopted for the conduct of the company's business.  It is the recognized prerogative of the employer to transfer and reassign employees according to the requirements of its business.  For indeed, regulation of manpower by the company clearly falls within the ambit of management prerogatives.  A valid exercise of management prerogatives is one which, among others, covers:  work assignment, working methods, time, supervision of workers, transfer of employees, work supervision, and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.  Except as provided for, or limited by special laws, an employer is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment."
[citations omitted]

    On the issue of compliance with due process:

    "Finally, petitioner assails the proceedings during the administrative investigation claiming violation of due process.  We are not convinced.

    "The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process.  Due process of law simply means giving opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.  In fact, there is no violation of due process even if no hearing was conducted, where the party was given a chance to explain his side of the controversy.  What is frowned upon is the denial of the opportunity to be heard.

    "A perusal of the record reveals that petitioner was duly notified of the charges against him and given the opportunity to defend himself via a written explanation and thereafter, to adduce evidence on his behalf during a formal hearing where he was represented by a counsel of his own choice.

    "A formal trial-type hearing is not even essential to due process.  It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair decision can be based.  This type of hearing is not even mandatory in cases of complaints lodged before the Labor Arbiter."
[citations omitted]