Suico vs NLRC

There are 3 consolidated cases in this case. All arises when the union MKP
staged a strike against PLDT.
The 3 cases involved strike-related violence to PLDT'S employees and
customers.
PLDT sent a letter demanding an explanation why they committed violence
during strike.
The petitioners did not comply to write written explanation. Instead, they
demanded PLDT to conduct a formal hearing about the complaints against
them.
Due to their refusal to write written explanation, PLDT terminated their
employment.
PLDT contended that the dismissal of employees for strike-related violence is
sufficient to declare the latter to have lost their employment without having
to comply with any procedure for their termination.

Issue:

Whether or not procedural due process is needed to be observed when the

employees committed strike-related violence?

Held:

PLDT is mistaken. Art. 277 (b) in relation to Art. 264 (a) and (e) recognizes
the right to due process of all workers, without distinction as to the cause of their
termination. Where no distinction is given, none is construed. Hence, the foregoing
standards of due process apply to the termination of employment of Suico, et al.
even if the cause therefor was their supposed involvement in strike-related violence
prohibited under Art. 264 (a) and (e).