GR 196156; (January, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196156; January 15, 2014
VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER (VCMC), Petitioner, vs. ERMA YBALLE, NELIA ANGEL, ELEUTERIA CORTEZ and EVELYN ONG, Respondents.
FACTS
Respondents were nurses and midwives employed by petitioner Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC). They were members of the Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa MCCH (NAMA-MCCH-NFL), a local chapter of the National Federation of Labor (NFL). In early 1996, a dispute arose when the local union, led by Perla Nava, sought to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) directly with management. The NFL’s legal counsel, Atty. Alforque, disowned these actions, suspended the local union officers for violating the federation’s constitution, and informed management that the local union was not authorized to bargain. Despite this, the local union members engaged in concerted activities like wearing protest armbands and picketing. VCMC deemed these activities an illegal strike, placed the officers on preventive suspension, and later terminated the employment of respondents and others for participation in the illegal strike and for supporting a union lacking legal personality.
ISSUE
Whether the termination of respondents from employment was legal.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the termination was illegal. The legal logic hinges on the absence of a valid cause for dismissal. For a strike to be illegal, thereby justifying dismissal of participants, it must be staged by a union with legal personality. The Court found that NAMA-MCCH-NFL, at the time of the strike, had no legal personality as an independent bargaining agent. The Department of Labor and Employment had certified it was not a registered labor organization, and its charter certificate was insufficient to confer legitimacy separate from the NFL. Since the NFL, the legitimate bargaining representative, had disowned the strike, the concerted actions were not protected activities of a recognized union. However, this very lack of legal personality means the participants could not be deemed to have engaged in a “strike” as legally defined—an activity undertaken by a legitimate labor organization. Consequently, their actions, while arguably constituting misconduct, did not rise to the level of a valid cause for termination under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The employer’s remedy was to impose lesser disciplinary sanctions, not dismissal. The Court ordered reinstatement with full backwages.