CASE DIGEST: VCMC V.
YBALLE
G.R NO. 196156 : JANUARY 15, 2014
VISAYAS COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTER (VCMC), formerly known as
METRO CEBU COMMUNITY HOSPITAL (MCCH), Petitioner, v. ERMA
YBALLE, NELIA ANGEL, ELEUTERIA CORTEZ and EVELYN ONG,
Respondents.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
FACTS:
Respondents were hired as staff nurses (Ong and Angel) and midwives (Yballe and
Cortez) by petitioner Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC), formerly the
Metro Cebu Community Hospital, Inc. (MCCHI). MCCHI is a non-stock, non-profit
corporation hich operates the Metro Cebu Community Hospital (MCCH), a tertiary
medical institution owned by the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP).
The National Federation of Labor (NFL) is the exclusive bargaining representative
of the rank-and-file employees of MCCHI.Under the 1987 and 1991 Collective
Bargaining Agreements (CBAs).
On December 6, 1995, Nava wrote Rev. Iyoy expressing the union desire to renew
the CBA, attaching to her letter a statement of proposals signed/endorsed by 153
union members.Nava subsequently requested that the following employees be
allowed to avail of one-day union leave with pay on December 19, 1995. 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.
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.
On February 26, 1996, upon the request of Atty. Alforque, MCCHI granted one-day
union leave with pay for 12 union members. The next day, 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.MCCHI directed the union officers led by Nava to submit within 48 hours a
written explanation why they should not be terminated for having engaged in illegal
concerted activities amounting to strike, and place them under immediate
preventive suspension.
Responding to this directive, 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.
On March 13 and 19, 1996, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
Regional Office No. 7 issued certifications stating thatthere is nothing in their
records which shows thatNAMA-MCCH-NFL isa registered labor organization, and
that said union submitted only a copy of its Charter Certificate on January 31,
1995.MCCHI then sent individual notices to all union members asking them to
submit within 72 hours a written explanation why they should not be terminated for
having supported the illegal concerted activities of NAMA-MCCH-NFL which has no
legal personality as per DOLE records.
On March 13, 1996, NAMA-MCCH-NFL filed a Notice of Strike but the same was
deemed not filed for want of legal personality on the part of the filer.
Meanwhile, the scheduled investigations did not push through because the striking
union members insisted on attending the same only as a group.MCCHI again sent
notices informing them that their refusal to submit to investigation is deemed a
waiver of their right to explain their side and management shall proceed to impose
proper disciplinary action under the circumstances.
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.Placards were placed at the
hospital entrance gate stating: lease proceed to another hospitaland e are on protest.
Employees and patients reported acts of intimidation and harassment perpetrated
by union leaders and members.With the intensified atmosphere of violence and
animosity within the hospital premises as a result of continued protest activities by
union members, MCCHI suffered heavy losses due to low patient admission rates.
The hospital suppliers also refused to make further deliveries on credit.With the
volatile situation adversely affecting hospital operations and the condition of
confined patients, MCCHI filed a petition for injunction in the NLRC on July 9,
1996.A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on July 16, 1996. MCCHI
presented 12 witnesses (hospital employees and patients), including a security guard
who was stabbed by an identified sympathizer while in the company of Nava
group.MCCHI petition was granted and a permanent injunction was issued on
September 18, 1996 enjoining the Nava group from committing illegal acts
mentioned in Art. 264 of the Labor Code.
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.
Executive Labor Arbiter Reynoso A. Belarmino rendered in his decision dismissing
the claim of unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal and declaring the termination
of the following as an offshoot of the illegal strike.
NLRC dismissed the motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents.
CA reversed the rulings of the Labor Artbiter and NLRC, ordered the reinstatement
of respondents and the payment of their full back wages.
ISSUE: hether or not respondents did not commit illegal acts during strike?
HELD: The strike held by respondents were illegal.
Labor Law - Illegal Strike
Paragraph 3, Article 264(a) of the Labor Code provides that . .any union officer who
knowingly participates in an 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. . .
We stress that the law makes a distinction between union members and union
officers. A worker merely participating in an illegal strike may not be terminated
from employment.It is only when he commits illegal acts during a strike that he may
be declared to have lost employment status. In contrast, a union officer may be
terminated from employment for knowingly participating in an illegal strike or
participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike.The law grants the
employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike
as having lost his employment. It possesses the right and prerogative to terminate
the union officers from service.
In this case, the NLRC affirmed the finding of the Labor Arbiter that respondents
supported and took part in the illegal strike and further declared that they were
guilty of insubordination.It noted that the striking employees were determined to
force management to negotiate with their union and proceeded with the strike
despite knowledge that NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not a legitimate labor organization
and without regard to the consequences of their acts consisting of displaying
placards and marching noisily inside the hospital premises, and blocking the entry
of vehicles and persons
Are respondents then entitled to back wages? In G & S Transport Corporation v.
Infante, ruled in the negative: with respect to backwages, the principle of a air day
wage for a fair day 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. x
x xIn Philippine Marine Officers Guild v. Compaia aritima, as affirmed in Philippine
Diamond Hotel and Resort v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees Union, 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.
In fine, we sustain the CA in ruling that respondents who are mere union members
were illegally dismissed for participating in the illegal strike conducted by the Nava
group.However, we set aside the order for their reinstatement and payment of full
backwages.
Petition for review on certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED.
