003 Abaria v. NLRC (LEONG) Metro Cebu Community Hospital, Inc., Board of Trustees, Rev.
Gregorio
Dec. 7, 2011 | Villarama, Jr., J. | Strike
[note: relate to Bascon v. CA]
G.R. No. 154113
PETITIONER: Eden Gladys Abaria, Romulo Alforque, Elena Alla, Evelyn
Apostol, Amelia Aragon, Beatriz Albastro, Gloria Ardulles, Glenda Bantilan,
Virgilie Borinaga, Roldan Calderon, Ildebrando Cuta, Romeo Empuerto,
Lannie Fernandez, Lucinell Gabayeron, Jesusa Gerona, Jose Gonzaga,
Teofilo Hinampas, Josefina Ibuna, Marlyn Labra, Maria Carmencita Lao, Era
Canen, Rodney Rex Lerias, Ernie Manligas, Johanne Del Mar, Ruby
Orimaco, Constancio Pagador, Marvelous Panal, Nolan Panal, Lillan
Petallar, Gerna Patigdas, Melodia Paulin, Shirley Rose Reyes, Josefina
Reyes, Oscar De Los Santos, Solomon De Los Santos, Ramon Tagnipis,
Bernadette Tibay, Ronald Tumulak, Leoncio Vallinas, Edelberto Villa and
the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo Sa Metro Cebu Community Hospital
RESPONDENTS: National Labor Relations Commission, Metro Cebu
Community Hospital, Inc., Its Board of Trustees, Rev. Gregorio Iyoy, Shiela
Buot, Rev. Lorenzo Genotiva, Ruben Caraban, Ruben Estoye, Lilia Sauro,
Rev. Elizer Bertoldo, Rizalina Villagante, Dra. Lucia Florendo, Concepcion
Villegas, Rev. Oliver Canen, Dra. Cyd Ragas, Rev. Mike Camba, Avednigo
Valiente, Rizalino Taganas, Ciriaco Pongasi, Isias Wagas, Rev. Ester
Geloagan, Rev. Leon Maniwan, Cresente Baoas, Winefreda Barloso, Rev.
Ruel Mariga And The United Church Of Christ In The Philippines, Rev.
Hilario Gomez, Rev. Elmer Bolocon, The National Federation Of Labor And
Armand Alforque
G.R. No. 187778
PETITIONER: Perla Nava, Daniela Yosores, Agustin Alfornon, Aileen
Catacutan, Rolando Redilosa, Cornelio Maribojo, Virgencita Casas, Crisanta
Genegaboas, Emilio Lao, Rico Gascon, Albina Bañez, Pedro Cabatingan,
Procomio Salupan, Elizabeth Ramon, Dioscoro Gabunada, Roy Malazarte,
Felicianita Malazarte, Norberta Caca, Milagros Castillo, Edna Albo, Bernabe
Lumapguid, Celia Sabas, Silverio Lao, Dario Labrador, Ernesto Canen, Jr.,
Elsa Bucao, Hannah Bongcaras, Nema Belocura, Pepito Llagas, Guillerma
Remocaldo, Rogelio Dabatos, Roberto Jayma, Raymundo Delatado, Merlyn
Nodado, Noel Hortelano, Hermelo Dela Torre, Lourdes Olarte, Danilo
Zamora, Luz Cabase, Catalina Alsado, Ruth Banzon And The Nagkahiusang
Mamumuo Sa Metro Cebu Community Hospital,
RESPONDENTS: National Labor Relations Commission (Fourth Division),
Iyoy, Shiela Buot, Rev. Lorenzo Genotiva, Ruben Cababan, Rosendo Estoye,
Lilia Sauro, Rev. Elizer Bertoldo, Rizalina Villagante, Dra. Lucia Florendo,
Concepcion Villegas, Rev. Oliver Canen, Dra. Cyd Raagas, Rev. Mike
Camba, Avidnigo Valiente, Rizalino Taganas, Ciriaco Pongasi, Isias Wagas,
Rev. Ester Geloagan, Rev. Leon Maniwan, Cresente Baoas, Winifreda
Barloso, Rev. Ruel Mariga, The United Church Of Christ In The Philippines,
Rev. Hilario Gomez, Rev. Elmer Bolocon, The National Federation Of Labor
And Armando Alforque
G.R. No. 187861
PETITIONER: Metro Cebu Community Hospital, presently known as
Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC)
RESPONDENTS: Perla Nava, Daniela Yosores, Agustin Alfornon, Aileen
Catacutan, Rolando Redilosa, Cornelio Maribojo, Virgencita Casas, Crisanta
Genegaboas, Emilio Lao, Rico Gascon, Albina Banez, Pedro Cabatingan,
Procomio Salupan, Elizabeth Ramon, Dioscoro Gabunada, Roy Malazarte,
Felicianita Malazarte, Norberta Caca, Milagros Castillo, Edna Albo, Bernabe
Lumabguid, Celia Sabas, Silverio Lao, Dario Labrador, Ernesto Canen, Jr.,
Elsa Bucao, Hannah Bongcaras, Nema Belocura, Pepito Llagas, Guillerma
Remocaldo, Rogelio Dabatos, Roberto Jayma, Raymundo Delatado, Noel
Hortelano, Hermelo De La Torre, Lourdes Olarte, Danilo Zamora, Luz
Cabase, Catalina Alsado And Ruth Banzon
G.R. No. 196156
PETITIONER: Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC) formerly
known as Metro Cebu Community Hospital (MCCH)
RESPONDENTS: Erma Yballe, Nelia Angel, Eleuteria Cortez and Evelyn
Ong
SUMMARY: MCCHI, presently known as Visayas Community Medical
Center (VCMC), is a non-stock, non-profit corporation. MCCHI is owned by
the United Church of Christ (UCCP) and Rev. Iyoy is its administrator.
The National Federation of Labor (NFL) is the exclusive bargaining
representative of the rank-and- file employees of MCCHI. In the CBA, Nava,
President of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa MCCH (NAMA-MCCH-NFL),
signed the proof of posting.
On December 6, 1995, Nava wanted to renew the CBA but MCCHI returned
the CBA proposal to secure first the endorsement of the legal counsel of NFL
as the official bargaining representative. But NFL said that it has not
authorized any person. Thus, the collection of union fees was suspended by
MCCHI because of the conflict. Subsequently, it advised Nava that there is
not recognized by NFL. Moreover, it suspended their union membership for
serious violation of the Constitution-and-by-laws.
Several union members led by Nava and her group launched a series of mass
actions such as wearing black and red armbands/headbands, marching
around the hospital premises and putting up placards, posters and streamers.
Atty. Alforque immediately disowned the concerted activities being carried
out by union members which are not sanctioned by NFL. Nava and her group
denied there was a temporary stoppage of work, explaining that employees
wore their armbands only as a sign of protest and reiterating their demand for
MCCHI to comply with its duty to bargain collectively.
Subsequently, the DOLE stated that NAMA-MCCHI-NFl is not a registered
labor organization and that said union submitted only a copy of its Charter
Certificate on January 31, 1995. Thus, their strike is illegal.
The Executive Labor Arbiter found no basis for the charge of unfair labor
practice. The termination of the union leaders was held as valid.
Complainants appealed before the CA but they were denied. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Respondent MCCHI, now VCMC, is guilty
of unfair labor practices? NO. NAMA-MCCH-NFL charged MCCHI with
refusal to bargain collectively when the latter refused to meet and convene
for purposes of collective bargaining, or at least give a counter-proposal to
the proposed CBA the union had submitted and which was ratified by a
majority of the union membership. MCCHI, on its part, deferred any
negotiations until the local union’s dispute with the national union federation
(NFL) is resolved considering that the latter is the exclusive bargaining agent
which represented the rank-and-file hospital employees in CBA negotiations
since 1987.
Records confirmed that NAMA-MCCH-NFL had not registered as a
labor organization, having submitted only its charter certificate as an
affiliate or local chapter of NFL. Not being a legitimate labor
organization, NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not entitled to those rights granted
to a legitimate labor organization under Art. 242, specifically:
(a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of collective
bargaining;
(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining;
Whether the strike was illegal? YES. As borne by the records, NAMA-
MCCH-NFL was not a duly registered or an independently registered union
at the time it filed the notice of strike on March 13, 1996 and when it
conducted the strike vote on April 2, 1996. It could not then legally represent
the union members. Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the
conduct of the strike vote report were ineffective for having been filed
and conducted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL which has no legal personality as
a legitimate labor organization. Furthermore, the strike was illegal due
to the commission of the following prohibited activities : (1) violence,
coercion, intimidation and harassment against non-participating
employees; and (2) blocking of free ingress to and egress from the
hospital, including preventing patients and their vehicles from entering
the hospital and other employees from reporting to work, the putting up
of placards with a statement advising incoming patients to proceed to
another hospital because MCCHI employees are on strike/protest. Since
the strike is illegal because they are not a legitimate labor organization,
the termination was said to be valid. The Officers knowingly participated
in the illegal strike. They were persistent in holding picketing acts even if
they are not a legitimate labor organization.
In relation to Bascon - Petitioners in G.R. Nos. 154113 and 187778 assail
the CA in not ordering their reinstatement with back wages. Invoking stare
decisis, they cited the case of Bascon v. Court of Appeals decided by this
Court in 2004 and which involved two former hospital employees who
likewise sued MCCHI after the latter terminated their employment due to
their participation in the same illegal strike led by NAMA-MCCH-NFL. In
said case we ruled that petitioners Cole and Bascon were illegally dismissed
because MCCHI failed to prove that they committed illegal acts during the
strike. We thus ordered the reinstatement of petitioners Bascon and Cole
without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and payment of their
back wages.
Although the Bascon case involved the very same illegal strike in MCCHI
which led to the termination of herein petitioners, its clearly erroneous
application of the law insofar only as the award of back wages warrants
setting aside the doctrine. Indeed, the doctrine of stare decisis
notwithstanding, the Court has abandoned or overruled precedents whenever
it realized that the Court erred in the prior decisions. "Afterall, more
important than anything else is that this Court should be right."
In G & S Transport Corporation v. Infante, the Court explained the rationale
for its recent rulings deleting back wages awarded to the dismissed
workers if the strike was found to be illegal. Considering that they did
not render work for the employer during the strike, they are entitled
only to reinstatement.
With respect to backwages, the principle of a "fair day’s wage for a fair
day’s labor" remains as the basic factor in determining the award thereof. If
there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay
unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but
was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally
prevented from working. While it was found that respondents expressed
their intention to report back to work, the latter exception cannot apply in
this case. In Philippine Marine Officers’ Guild v. Compañia Maritima, the
Court stressed that for this exception to apply, it is required that the
strike be legal, a situation that does not obtain in the case at bar.
DOCTRINE: Those in bold.
FACTS:
1. The consolidated petitions before us involve the legality of mass
termination of hospital employees who participated in strike and
picketing activities.
2. Metro Cebu Community Hospital, Inc. (MCCHI), presently known
as the Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC), is a non-stock,
non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of
the Philippines. It operates the Metro Cebu Community Hospital
(MCCH), a tertiary medical institution located at Osmeña Boulevard,
Cebu City. MCCH is owned by the United Church of Christ in the
Philippines (UCCP) and Rev. Gregorio P. Iyoy is the Hospital
Administrator.
3. In the CBA effective from January 1994 until December 31, 1995,
the signatories were Sheila E. Buot as Board of Trustees Chairman,
Rev. Iyoy as MCCH Administrator and Atty. Fernando Yu as Legal
Counsel of NFL, while Perla Nava, President of Nagkahiusang
Mamumuo sa MCCH (NAMA-MCCH-NFL) signed the Proof of
Posting.
4. On December 6, 1995, Nava wrote Rev. Iyoy expressing the union’s
desire to renew the CBA, attaching to her letter a statement of
proposals signed/endorsed by 153 union members. However,
MCCHI returned the CBA proposal for Nava to secure first the
endorsement of the legal counsel of NFL as the official bargaining
representative of MCCHI employees.
5. Meanwhile, Atty. Alforque informed MCCHI that the proposed CBA
submitted by Nava was never referred to NFL and that NFL has not
authorized any other legal counsel or any person for collective
bargaining negotiations. By January 1996, the collection of union
fees (check-off) was temporarily suspended by MCCHI in view of
the existing conflict between the federation and its local affiliate.
Thereafter, MCCHI attempted to take over the room being used as
union office but was prevented to do so by Nava and her group who
protested these actions and insisted that management directly
negotiate with them for a new CBA. MCCHI referred the matter to
Atty. Alforque, NFL’s Regional Director, and advised Nava that
their group is not recognized by NFL.
6. In his letter dated February 24, 1996 addressed to Nava, Ernesto
Canen, Jr., Jesusa Gerona, Hannah Bongcaras, Emma Remocaldo,
Catalina Alsado and Albina Bañez, Atty. Alforque suspended their
union membership for serious violation of the Constitution and By-
Laws.
7. Several union members led by Nava and her group launched a series
of mass actions such as wearing black and red armbands/headbands,
marching around the hospital premises and putting up placards,
posters and streamers. Atty. Alforque immediately disowned the
concerted activities being carried out by union members which are
 not sanctioned by NFL. Nava and her group denied there was a
temporary stoppage of work, explaining that employees wore their
armbands only as a sign of protest and reiterating their demand for
MCCHI to comply with its duty to bargain collectively.
8. On March 13 and 19, 1996, the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. 7 issued certifications
stating that there is nothing in their records which shows that
NAMA-MCCH-NFL is a registered labor organization, and that said
union submitted only a copy of its Charter Certificate on January 31,
1995.
9. For their continued picketing activities despite the said warning,
more than 100 striking employees were dismissed effective April 12
and 19, 1996.
10. Unfazed, the striking union members held more mass actions. The
means of ingress to and egress from the hospital were blocked so that
vehicles carrying patients and employees were barred from entering
the premises.
11. Thereafter, several complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor
practice were filed by the terminated employees against MCCHI,
Rev. Iyoy, UCCP and members of the Board of Trustees of MCCHI.
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether or not the Respondent MCCHI, now VCMC, is guilty of
unfair labor practices? NO.
2. Whether the strike was illegal? YES.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No.
187861 is DENIED while the petitions in G.R. Nos. 154113, 187778 and
196156 are PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated October 17, 2008 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 66540 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS in that MCCHI is ordered to pay the petitioners in G.R.
Nos. 154113 and 187778, except the petitioners who are union officers,
separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, and
reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of ₱50,000.00. The Decision dated
November 7, 2008 is likewise AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in that
MCCHI is ordered to pay the private respondents in G.R. No. 196156
separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service, and
that the award of back wages is DELETED.
The case is hereby remanded to the Executive Labor Arbiter for the
recomputation of separation pay due to each of the petitioners union
members in G.R. Nos. 154113, 187778 and 196156 except those who have
executed compromise agreements approved by this Court.
RATIO:
Issue 1
1. Art. 248 (g) of the Labor Code, as amended, makes it an unfair labor
practice for an employer "to violate the duty to bargain collectively"
as prescribed by the Code.
2. NAMA-MCCH-NFL charged MCCHI with refusal to bargain
collectively when the latter refused to meet and convene for purposes
of collective bargaining, or at least give a counter-proposal to the
proposed CBA the union had submitted and which was ratified by a
majority of the union membership. MCCHI, on its part, deferred any
negotiations until the local union’s dispute with the national union
federation (NFL) is resolved considering that the latter is the
exclusive bargaining agent which represented the rank-and-file
hospital employees in CBA negotiations since 1987. The Court ruled
for MCCHI.
3. Records of the NCMB and DOLE Region 7 confirmed that NAMA-
MCCH-NFL had not registered as a labor organization, having
submitted only its charter certificate as an affiliate or local chapter of
NFL.37 Not being a legitimate labor organization, NAMA-MCCH-
NFL is not entitled to those rights granted to a legitimate labor
organization under Art. 242, specifically:
(a) To act as the representative of its members for the purpose of
collective bargaining;
(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit for purposes
of collective bargaining;
4. Aside from the registration requirement, it is only the labor
organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees
in an appropriate collective bargaining unit which is the exclusive
representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose of
collective bargaining, as provided in Art. 255. NAMA-MCCH-NFL
is not the labor organization certified or designated by the majority
of the rank-and-file hospital employees to represent them in the CBA
negotiations but the NFL, as evidenced by CBAs concluded in 1987,
1991 and 1994. While it is true that a local union has the right to
disaffiliate from the national federation, NAMA-MCCH-NFL has
not done so as there was no any effort on its part to comply with the
legal requisites for a valid disaffiliation during the "freedom period"
or the last 60 days of the last year of the CBA, through a majority
vote in a secret balloting in accordance with Art. 241 (d). Nava and
her group simply demanded that MCCHI directly negotiate with the
local union which has not even registered as one.
5. In any case, NAMA-MCCH-NFL at the time of submission of said
proposals was not a duly registered labor organization, hence it
Issue 2
cannot legally represent MCCHI’s rank-and-file employees for
purposes of collective bargaining. Hence, even assuming that
NAMA-MCCH-NFL had validly disaffiliated from its mother union,
NFL, it still did not possess the legal personality to enter into CBA
negotiations. A local union which is not independently registered
cannot, upon disaffiliation from the federation, exercise the rights
and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations; thus,
it cannot file a petition for certification election.
6. Not being a legitimate labor organization nor the certified exclusive
bargaining representative of MCCHI’s rank-and-file employees,
NAMA-MCCH-NFL cannot demand from MCCHI the right to
bargain collectively in their behalf. Hence, MCCHI’s refusal to
bargain then with NAMA-MCCH-NFL cannot be considered an
unfair labor practice to justify the staging of the strike.
7. According to Art 263, no labor union may strike and no employer
may declare a lockout on grounds involving inter-union and intra-
union disputes.
8. As borne by the records, NAMA-MCCH-NFL was not a duly
registered or an independently registered union at the time it filed the
notice of strike on March 13, 1996 and when it conducted the strike
vote on April 2, 1996. It could not then legally represent the union
members. Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the
conduct of the strike vote report were ineffective for having been
filed and conducted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL which has no legal
personality as a legitimate labor organization.
9. Art. 264 (a) of the Labor Code, as amended, provides for the
consequences of an illegal strike to the participating workers:
10. x x x Any union officer who knowingly participates in illegal strike
and any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in the
commission of illegal acts during a strike may be declared to have
lost his employment status Provided, That mere participation of a
worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for
termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired
by the employer during such lawful strike.
11. As borne by the records, NAMA-MCCH-NFL was not a duly
registered or an independently registered union at the time it filed the
notice of strike on March 13, 1996 and when it conducted the strike
vote on April 2, 1996. It could not then legally represent the union
members. Consequently, the mandatory notice of strike and the
conduct of the strike vote report were ineffective for having been
filed and conducted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL which has no legal
personality as a legitimate labor organization.
12. Furthermore, the strike was illegal due to the commission of the
following prohibited activities : (1) violence, coercion, intimidation
and harassment against non-participating employees; and (2)
blocking of free ingress to and egress from the hospital, including
preventing patients and their vehicles from entering the hospital and
other employees from reporting to work, the putting up of placards
with a statement advising incoming patients to proceed to another
hospital because MCCHI employees are on strike/protest. Since the
strike is illegal because they are not a legitimate labor organization,
the termination was said to be valid. The Officers knowingly
participated in the illegal strike. They were persistent in holding
picketing acts even if they are not a legitimate labor organization.