Case Digest (G.R. No. 168632)
Facts:
Far Eastern University - Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation (FEU-NRMF) and Lilia P. Luna, M.D. v. FEU-NRMF Employees Association‑Alliance of Filipino Workers (FEU‑NRMFEA‑AFW), et al., G.R. No. 168632, October 16, 2006, First Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner FEU‑NRMF is a medical institution; respondent union FEU‑NRMFEA‑AFW is the certified representative of its rank‑and‑file employees. A Collective Bargaining Agreement between the parties expired on 30 April 1996. Negotiations for a new CBA broke down: the union submitted proposals on 21 March 1996; FEU‑NRMF rejected most demands on 8 May 1996 and offered to consider salary increases only. Conciliation before the NCMB‑NCR failed.On 6 August 1996 the union filed a Notice of Strike for bargaining deadlock, held a strike vote on 23 August 1996, and, after the thirty‑day cooling‑off and seven‑day ban periods, commenced a strike on 6 September 1996. The union offered on 4 September 1996 a skeletal force of medical personnel to man the hospital during the strike; FEU‑NRMF did not accept that offer (the union says for unknown reasons). FEU‑NRMF had filed, on 29 August 1996, a Petition for Assumption of Jurisdiction with the NLRC; the Secretary of Labor issued an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order on 5 September 1996 prohibiting strikes and later (12 September 1996) directed the strikers to return to work. A Return to Work Agreement was executed on 13 September 1996 and the employees returned to work that day.
FEU‑NRMF filed NLRC‑NCR No. 10‑11‑0733‑96 alleging the strike was illegal for defying the Secretary of Labor’s Assumption of Jurisdiction Order and that striking employees barricaded hospital entrances, prevented deliveries and an ambulance, and impeded patient access; FEU‑NRMF sought declaration of illegality, dismissal of the officers and decertification of the union. The union countered that it complied with procedural prerequisites for strike (notice, secret ballot, cooling‑off/ban periods), offered a skeletal force that was refused, and that it did not receive personal service of the Assumption Order.
On 27 May 1998 the Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and ruled that seven named union officers lost their employment status. The Arbiter denied decertification and damages for lack of jurisdiction and insufficient evidence. The NLRC, by Resolution dated 23 September 2002, affirmed the Labor Arbiter in toto, finding the union officers had admitted knowledge of the Secretary’s Assumption Order during conciliation and thus defied it. The NLRC denied the union’s motion for reconsideration on 30 June 2004.
The union petitioned the Court of Appeals under Rule 65, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC. On 22 March 2005 the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. SP No. 86690) granted the petition, finding the process server did not validly effect personal service of the Assumption Order and that such defective service rendered subsequent sanctions improper; the CA reversed the NLRC Resolution and its denial of reconsideration. The CA denied FEU‑NRMF’s motion for reconsideration on 22 June 2005.
FEU‑NRMF filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 to the Supreme Court, assailing th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was service of the Secretary of Labor’s Assumption of Jurisdiction Order validly effected?
- Was the strike conducted by FEU‑NRMFEA‑AFW illegal?
- Was the dismissal (loss of employment status) of the union ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)