G.R. No. 168632 - Far Eastern University-Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation vs. FEU-NRMF Employees Association

Petitioner: Far Eastern University – Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation (FEU-NRMF), a duly organized medical institution engaged in providing health care services.
Respondents:

The FEU-NRMF Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers (FEU-NRMFEA-AFW), a legitimate labor organization representing the rank and file employees of FEU-NRMF.
Individual union officers and members who participated in the labor dispute.

In 1994, FEU-NRMF and the respondent union entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) set to expire on 30 April 1996.
Approaching the expiry, on 21 March 1996 the union sent a letter-proposal outlining economic and non-economic demands for the new CBA.
On 8 May 1996, FEU-NRMF responded by rejecting most of the union’s demands on the ground of financial constraints, while assuring consideration only on the possibility of a salary increase.
Subsequent conciliation proceedings before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board – National Capital Region (NCMB-NCR) failed, as both parties maintained unyielding positions.

On 6 August 1996, the respondent union filed a Notice of Strike with NCMB-NCR due to a bargaining deadlock.
A strike vote was conducted on 23 August 1996 and duly submitted to the NCMB-NCR on 26 August 1996.
After the mandatory cooling off (thirty-day) and strike ban (seven-day) periods, the strike was staged on 6 September 1996.
Prior to the strike, on 4 September 1996, the union offered a skeletal force of nursing and health personnel to keep the hospital operational; FEU-NRMF, however, failed or refused to accept the offer.
On 29 August 1996, FEU-NRMF filed a petition for the assumption of jurisdiction before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), stressing its role as a medical institution.

Acting on FEU-NRMF’s petition, the Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute on 5 September 1996 by issuing an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order.
The Order was meant to prohibit any strike or lockout, enjoining actions that might exacerbate the dispute.
Francisco Escuadra, the NLRC process server, attempted personal service on 5 September 1996 but, finding no union officials, resorted to posting copies of the Order at conspicuous places within the hospital premises around 4:30 P.M.
Despite the posted notice, respondents (the union and its members) continued their strike until 12 September 1996, claiming lack of knowledge of the Order due to the manner of service.

On 12 September 1996, after issuance of another Order by the Secretary of Labor, striking employees were directed to return to work. A Return to Work Agreement was executed on 13 September 1996, restoring the employees’ status pro ante.
FEU-NRMF subsequently filed a case before the NLRC alleging the strike was illegal, disruptive to hospital operations, and resulted in blockades that endangered patient care.
In its complaint, FEU-NRMF claimed that union employees barricaded the hospital’s ingress and egress, thereby impeding the delivery of necessary supplies, ambulance passage, and access for patients.

On 27 May 1998, the Labor Arbiter issued a decision declaring the strike illegal and ordering the dismissal of certain union officers for having lost their employment status due to the strike.
Subsequent NLRC resolutions, especially the one dated 23 September 2002, affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s findings, including the loss of employment status of the union officers.
The respondent union sought relief through a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the NLRC on 30 June 2004 for failure to demonstrate palpable or patent errors.

The respondent union filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, contesting the NLRC decisions that upheld the strike’s illegality and the consequent dismissal of union officers.
On 22 March 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC Resolution and the Labor Arbiter’s decision on the grounds of grave abuse of discretion, particularly focusing on the process server’s invalid mode of service for the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order.
The petitioners (FEU-NRMF and its allied union groups) then assailed the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution on the premise that it erroneously reversed the administrative decisions.

The central factual issue revolves around the validity of the service of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order.
The process server’s certificate stated that, due to unavailability of union officials, copies of the Order were simply posted at the hospital.
The validity of such mode of service is contested as it did not strictly conform to the NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure and the Revised Rules of Court, which require service either personally or through registered mail (or, in special circumstances, properly sanctioned substituted service).

Whether or not the service of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was validly effected despite the process server’s resort to posting the notice instead of personal delivery.
Whether or not the strike conducted by the respondent union, under the circumstances, was illegal.
Whether or not the dismissal of the union officers based on the alleged strike illegalities was valid.