G.R. No. 154113 , December 7, 2011; G.R. No. 187778; G.R. No. 187861; G.R. No. 196156
Case Parties/Title:

EDEN GLADYS ABARIA, et al. and the NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Respondents.
PERLA NAVA, et al. and the NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (FOURTH DIVISION), METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., et al., Respondents.
METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, presently known as Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC), Petitioner, vs. PERLA NAVA, et al., Respondents.
VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER (VCMC) formerly known as METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (MCCH), Petitioner, vs. ERMA YBALLE, NELIA ANGEL, ELEUTERIA CORTEZ and EVELYN ONG, Respondents.

FACTS

Metro Cebu Community Hospital, Inc. (MCCHI), now Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC), is a non-stock, non-profit corporation owned by the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP). The National Federation of Labor (NFL) was the exclusive bargaining representative of its rank-and-file employees. In December 1995, Perla Nava, President of the local union Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa MCCH (NAMA-MCCH-NFL), wrote to management to renew the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), submitting proposals endorsed by 153 members. MCCHI returned the proposal, stating Nava needed to secure endorsement from NFL’s legal counsel. Atty. Armando Alforque, NFL’s Regional Director, informed MCCHI that the proposal was unauthorized and that NFL had not authorized any other counsel or person for negotiations. MCCHI subsequently suspended the collection of union dues due to the conflict between NFL and its local affiliate.
On February 24, 1996, Atty. Alforque suspended the union membership of Nava and several others for serious violations of the NFL Constitution and By-Laws, including declaring loyalty to the KMU (Kilusang Mayo Uno) instead of the NFL, and submitting a CBA proposal to management without NFL consultation. The suspended members were also removed from their union positions. In response, the suspended members held a strike vote and formed a picket line on March 4, 1996, which disrupted hospital operations. MCCHI filed a petition to declare the strike illegal. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction and ordered all striking workers to return to work immediately. Many workers did not comply. MCCHI then sent individual notices to the striking employees to explain why they should not be dismissed for participating in an illegal strike and for abandoning their work. After receiving their explanations, MCCHI terminated the employment of those who participated in the illegal strike. The legality of these mass terminations is the subject of the consolidated petitions.

ISSUE

Whether the mass termination of the hospital employees who participated in the strike and picketing activities was legal.

RULING

Yes, the mass termination was legal. The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals that the strike was illegal. The striking employees, led by Perla Nava, were not the duly authorized bargaining representative, as the NFL was the certified exclusive bargaining agent. Their act of negotiating separately and conducting a strike without the NFL’s authority constituted bargaining in bad faith and an illegal strike. The Secretary of Labor properly assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute due to the hospital’s indispensable role in public health. The striking workers defied the return-to-work order, thereby committing illegal acts in the conduct of their strike. Participation in an illegal strike is a valid ground for dismissal under Article 264(a) of the Labor Code. The Court found that MCCHI observed due process by sending individual notices, conducting hearings, and considering the employees’ explanations before effecting the dismissals. The petitions filed by the employees were dismissed, and the petitions filed by the hospital (VCMC) were granted. The decisions of the Court of Appeals affirming the legality of the dismissals were upheld.