GR 168362; (October, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168362 ; October 12, 2006
FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY – DR. NICANOR REYES MEDICAL FOUNDATION (FEU-NRMF) and LILIA P. LUNA. M.D., petitioners, vs. FEU-NRMF EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS (FEU-NRMFEA-AFW), et al., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner FEU-NRMF, a medical institution, and respondent union entered into a CBA expiring on April 30, 1996. Negotiations for a new CBA reached a deadlock, leading the union to file a Notice of Strike on August 6, 1996, on the ground of bargaining deadlock. After observing the required cooling-off period and strike ban, the union staged a strike on September 6, 1996. Prior to the strike, the union offered a skeletal force to maintain hospital operations, but FEU-NRMF did not accept the offer.
Meanwhile, FEU-NRMF filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction, which was granted via an Order dated September 5, 1996, prohibiting any strike. The NLRC process server certified that he attempted to serve the order on union officers on September 5 but, finding no one, posted copies in conspicuous places within the hospital premises. The union claimed no knowledge of this order and continued the strike until September 12, 1996, when a subsequent order from the Secretary of Labor directed a return to work.
ISSUE
Whether the strike conducted by the respondent union was illegal, warranting the dismissal of the union officers and members.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the strike was legal. The legal logic centers on procedural and substantive defects in the petitioners’ case. First, the service of the Secretary of Labor’s Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was defective. The NLRC’s own rules require personal service of such orders or, if not practicable, service by registered mail. Mere posting of the order, as done by the process server, does not constitute valid service. Therefore, the union cannot be deemed to have knowledge of the order, and their continuation of the strike until they were properly served on September 12 did not render it illegal for defying a return-to-work order.
Second, the allegations of illegal acts during the strike, such as violence and coercion, were based primarily on affidavits and photographs presented by FEU-NRMF. The Court held these affidavits to be hearsay and without probative value because the affiants were not presented for cross-examination by the union. The photographs’ authenticity was also unverified. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence to prove the strike was attended by illegal acts. Since the strike was grounded on a valid bargaining deadlock and the procedural requirements for a strike were observed, it was a legal exercise of the right to concerted action. The dismissal of the union officers and members was therefore unjustified.