Title
Abaria vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 154113
Decision Date
Dec 7, 2011
A local union's illegal strike led to dismissals; court ruled officers' dismissals valid, members entitled to separation pay, no unfair labor practice by hospital.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 220935)

Overview of Parties and Applicable Law

MCCHI is a non-stock, non-profit organization operating Metro Cebu Community Hospital in Cebu City, owned by the United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP). The NFL is the certified exclusive bargaining agent for hospital employees pursuant to collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) from 1987, 1991, and 1994. The local union, Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Metro Cebu Community Hospital (NAMA-MCCH-NFL), disaffiliated from NFL but lacked registration as an independent labor organization as confirmed by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Relevant law includes the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Labor Code (especially Articles 242, 248, 253, 255, 261-264), and implementing rules on strikes and union activities.

Factual Background and Union Dispute

NAMA-MCCH-NFL, led by Perla Nava, sought to negotiate a new CBA directly with MCCHI in 1995 despite NFL’s status as the exclusive bargaining agent. MCCHI deferred negotiations due to an intra-union dispute between NFL and NAMA-MCCH-NFL, which was neither registered nor authorized to represent employees. NFL legal counsel suspended membership of several NAMA-MCCH-NFL officers for violations including disloyalty and unauthorized negotiations, based on the Federation’s constitution and by-laws. Subsequently, NAMA-MCCH-NFL conducted strike votes and engaged in picketing without lawful status or proper notice, leading to employer action.

Legality of Collective Bargaining and Union Recognition

MCCHI’s refusal to bargain with NAMA-MCCH-NFL was justified because the latter was not a duly registered labor organization nor the certified exclusive bargaining representative, criteria necessary under the Labor Code for collective bargaining rights. The Court emphasized that disaffiliation without compliance to legal requisites, such as secret balloting during the “freedom period,” does not confer independent legal personality, thus barring the local union from negotiating or declaring strikes. Intra-union disputes must be resolved independently, and employers are not obligated to deal with unrecognized groups.

Strike and Picketing Activities Declared Illegal

The strike initiated by NAMA-MCCH-NFL was deemed illegal due to: (1) the lack of legal personality and certification to represent employees; (2) failure to comply with mandatory strike notice and polling requirements; and (3) involvement in prohibited acts during the strike such as violence, intimidation, coercion, harassment of non-striking employees, and obstruction of ingress and egress to hospital premises. The Department of Labor and Employment and National Conciliation and Mediation Board records did not recognize the strike’s legality. The local government ordered demolition of strike-related obstructions classified as public nuisance, and the NLRC issued a permanent injunction against unlawful activities on hospital grounds.

Consequences for Union Officers and Employees

Under Article 264 of the Labor Code, union officers who knowingly participate in illegal strikes may be terminated, while rank-and-file workers cannot be terminated solely for participating, unless they committed illegal acts during the strike. Considering the union officers’ role in unauthorized negotiations and continuation of illegal strike activities despite warnings, their termination was valid and justified. For rank-and-file employees, the Court found no clear proof of individual commission of illegal acts, rendering their dismissal unlawful.

Rights of Dismissed Employees and Relief Measures

Although the Court recognized the illegal dismissal of rank-and-file union members, it denied back wages on the basis of the “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor” principle because the employees did not render service during the illegal strike. Reinstatement was deemed impractical due to the long duration of the dispute (over 15 years), strained relations, replacement of personnel, and some petitioners’ changed circumstances (including compromise agreements). Accordingly, separation pay equivalent to one month’s salary for every year of service, in lieu of reinstatement, was ordered as fair compensation.

On the Petitioners’ Certification Against Forum Shopping

The Court held that while the rule requires all petitioners to sign the certification against forum shopping, substantial compliance is sufficient when petitioners share the same interests and legal claims. The signatures of 47 out of 88 petitioners constituted substantial compliance, and the Court ruled that dropping non-signatories as parties was in error.

Application of Doctrine of Stare Decisis and Setting Aside Precedent

The petitioners cited prior jurisprudence (Bascon v. Court of Appeals) awarding back wages due to illegal dismissal involving the same strike. However, applying the recent rationale that “a fair day’s

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.