G.R. No. L-30871 - De Leon vs. Salvador

Respondents (staff nurses and midwives) were hired by petitioner Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC), formerly known as Metro Cebu Community Hospital (MCCH), a non-stock, non-profit corporation affiliated with the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP).
The hospital operates as a tertiary medical institution and has long been involved in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with its employees as represented by labor organizations.

The National Federation of Labor (NFL) is the designated bargaining agent of MCCH’s rank-and-file employees.
Multiple CBAs were in place from 1987 up to the mid-1990s with varied signatories, and disputes emerged regarding union representation.
A conflict arose when Perla Nava, representing a group of union members, submitted proposals to renew the CBA without proper endorsement from NFL’s legal counsel, leading to questions about the group’s legitimacy.
Tensions escalated when the hospital suspended the collection of union fees (check-off) and attempted to utilize the union office, actions resisted by Nava and her members.

On December 1995, union members led by Nava requested one-day union leave with pay, but management referred the matter to NFL, which did not recognize Nava’s group as the official bargaining representative.
Following conflicting positions, union members initiated mass actions on February 26–27, 1996, which included:

Wearing black and red armbands/headbands as a symbol of protest.
Marching around hospital premises and displaying placards, posters, and streamers.

MCCH directed union officers to submit written explanations or face termination.
Investigations were launched, and several union members were suspended or terminated for their participation in the protest activities.

The hospital filed a petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the NLRC to halt the protest, which was eventually followed by a permanent injunction on September 18, 1996.
Subsequently, various complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice were filed by the terminated employees against MCCH and its officials.
The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered decisions awarding separation pay to a number of complainants while upholding the termination of union officers who led the strike.
The case underwent several appeals before the NLRC and the Court of Appeals (CA), with fluctuating rulings on issues of reinstatement, back wages, and separation pay.

Multiple petitions consolidated under Abaria v. NLRC (G.R. Nos. 154113, 187778, 187861, and 196156) focused on whether the dismissal of union members and officers in connection with the illegal strike was valid.
The CA’s decisions at various stages initially favored reinstatement and the awarding of back wages, before modifications led to the grant of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement for the rank-and-file members.
Finally, the Supreme Court partially granted the petition by:

Affirming that union officers who knowingly participated in unauthorized strike activities could be terminated.
Setting aside the order of reinstatement and the award of full back wages for union members, awarding instead separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service.

The case was remanded for recalculation of separation pay due to the respondents who were not union officers.

Whether the actions of respondents during the mass protest, particularly their wearing of armbands and participation in picketing, constitute illegal concerted activities under the Labor Code.
Whether such actions, absent additional illegal conduct, can justify termination of employment.

Whether the legal standards for dismissing a union officer differ from those applicable to rank-and-file members who are merely following protest actions.
Whether witnesses’ participation limited to non-aggressive forms of protest (i.e., wearing armbands) merits a different treatment regarding reinstatement or compensation.

Whether respondents, as union members, should be granted reinstatement and full back wages, or if separation pay in lieu of reinstatement is the proper remedy.
Whether the appeal and subsequent modifications to the awards for back wages and reinstatement were justified under the facts and controlling law.

The impact of respondents’ shifting representations—from initially acknowledging participation in the strike to later dissociating themselves from the more aggressive actions of the Nava group—on the resolution of their claims.
Whether their inconsistent positions affect entitlement to labor benefits and remedies.

Whether the granting of back wages is appropriate given that a worker who is illegally dismissed is ordinarily entitled to full benefits if he is indeed out of work.
Whether the nature and extent of respondents’ participation in the strike warrant the deletion of the back wages award in favor of separation pay.