10. eden gladys et al vs. nlrc

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/dec2011/gr_154113_2011.html 1/13

TodayisMonday,February08,2016

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.154113December7,2011

EDENGLADYSABARIA,ROMULOALFORQUE,ELENAALLA,EVELYNAPOSTOL,AMELIAARAGON,BEATRIZALBASTRO, GLORIA ARDULLES, GLENDA BANTILAN, VIRGILIE BORINAGA, ROLDAN CALDERON,ILDEBRANDO CUTA, ROMEO EMPUERTO, LANNIE FERNANDEZ, LUCINELL GABAYERON, JESUSAGERONA,JOSEGONZAGA,TEOFILOHINAMPAS,JOSEFINAIBUNA,MARLYNLABRA,MARIACARMENCITALAO, ERA CANEN, RODNEY REX LERIAS, ERNIE MANLIGAS, JOHANNE DEL MAR, RUBY ORIMACO,CONSTANCIO PAGADOR, MARVELOUS PANAL, NOLAN PANAL, LILLAN PETALLAR, GERNA PATIGDAS,MELODIAPAULIN,SHIRLEYROSEREYES,JOSEFINAREYES,OSCARDELOSSANTOS,SOLOMONDELOSSANTOS,RAMONTAGNIPIS,BERNADETTETIBAY,RONALDTUMULAK, LEONCIOVALLINAS, EDELBERTOVILLAandtheNAGKAHIUSANGMAMUMUOSAMETROCEBUCOMMUNITYHOSPITAL,Petitioners,vs.NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION,METROCEBUCOMMUNITYHOSPITAL,INC.,ITSBOARDOFTRUSTEES,REV.GREGORIO IYOY,SHIELABUOT,REV.LORENZOGENOTIVA,RUBENCARABAN,RUBENESTOYE, LILIA SAURO, REV. ELIZER BERTOLDO, RIZALINA VILLAGANTE, DRA. LUCIA FLORENDO,CONCEPCION VILLEGAS, REV. OLIVER CANEN, DRA. CYD RAGAS, REV. MIKE CAMBA, AVEDNIGOVALIENTE, RIZALINO TAGANAS, CIRIACO PONGASI, ISIASWAGAS, REV. ESTER GELOAGAN, REV. LEONMANIWAN,CRESENTEBAOAS,WINEFREDABARLOSO,REV.RUELMARIGAANDTHEUNITEDCHURCHOFCHRISTINTHEPHILIPPINES,REV.HILARIOGOMEZ,REV.ELMERBOLOCON,THENATIONALFEDERATIONOFLABORANDARMANDALFORQUE,Respondents.

xx

G.R.No.187778

PERLA NAVA, DANIELA YOSORES, AGUSTIN ALFORNON, AILEEN CATACUTAN, ROLANDO REDILOSA,CORNELIO MARIBOJO, VIRGENCITA CASAS, CRISANTA GENEGABOAS, EMILIO LAO, RICO GASCON,ALBINABAEZ,PEDROCABATINGAN,PROCOMIOSALUPAN,ELIZABETHRAMON,DIOSCOROGABUNADA,ROY MALAZARTE, FELICIANITA MALAZARTE, NORBERTA CACA, MILAGROS CASTILLO, EDNA ALBO,BERNABE LUMAPGUID, CELIA SABAS, SILVERIO LAO, DARIO LABRADOR, ERNESTO CANEN, JR., ELSABUCAO,HANNAHBONGCARAS,NEMABELOCURA,PEPITOLLAGAS,GUILLERMAREMOCALDO,ROGELIODABATOS,ROBERTOJAYMA,RAYMUNDODELATADO,MERLYNNODADO,NOELHORTELANO,HERMELODELATORRE,LOURDESOLARTE,DANILOZAMORA,LUZCABASE,CATALINAALSADO,RUTHBANZONANDTHENAGKAHIUSANGMAMUMUOSAMETROCEBUCOMMUNITYHOSPITAL,Petitioners,vs.NATIONALLABORRELATIONSCOMMISSION(FOURTHDIVISION),METROCEBUCOMMUNITYHOSPITAL,INC., BOARD OF TRUSTEES, REV. GREGORIO IYOY, SHIELA BUOT, REV. LORENZO GENOTIVA, RUBENCABABAN,ROSENDOESTOYE,LILIASAURO,REV.ELIZERBERTOLDO,RIZALINAVILLAGANTE,DRA.LUCIAFLORENDO, CONCEPCION VILLEGAS, REV. OLIVER CANEN, DRA. CYD RAAGAS, REV. MIKE CAMBA,AVIDNIGO VALIENTE, RIZALINO TAGANAS, CIRIACO PONGASI, ISIAS WAGAS, REV. ESTER GELOAGAN,REV. LEON MANIWAN, CRESENTE BAOAS, WINIFREDA BARLOSO, REV. RUEL MARIGA, THE UNITEDCHURCHOFCHRISTINTHEPHILIPPINES,REV.HILARIOGOMEZ,REV.ELMERBOLOCON,THENATIONALFEDERATIONOFLABORANDARMANDOALFORQUE,Respondents.

xx

G.R.No.187861

METROCEBUCOMMUNITYHOSPITAL,presentlyknownasVisayasCommunityMedicalCenter(VCMC),Petitioner,vs.PERLA NAVA, DANIELA YOSORES, AGUSTIN ALFORNON, AILEEN CATACUTAN, ROLANDO REDILOSA,CORNELIO MARIBOJO, VIRGENCITA CASAS, CRISANTA GENEGABOAS, EMILIO LAO, RICO GASCON,ALBINABANEZ,PEDROCABATINGAN,PROCOMIOSALUPAN,ELIZABETHRAMON,DIOSCOROGABUNADA,ROY MALAZARTE, FELICIANITA MALAZARTE, NORBERTA CACA, MILAGROS CASTILLO, EDNA ALBO,BERNABE LUMABGUID, CELIA SABAS, SILVERIO LAO, DARIO LABRADOR, ERNESTO CANEN, JR., ELSABUCAO,HANNAHBONGCARAS,NEMABELOCURA,PEPITOLLAGAS,GUILLERMAREMOCALDO,ROGELIODABATOS, ROBERTO JAYMA, RAYMUNDO DELATADO, NOEL HORTELANO, HERMELO DE LA TORRE,LOURDESOLARTE,DANILOZAMORA,LUZCABASE,CATALINAALSADOANDRUTHBANZON,Respondents.

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


xx

G.R.No.196156

VISAYASCOMMUNITYMEDICALCENTER(VCMC)formerlyknownasMETROCEBUCOMMUNITYHOSPITAL(MCCH),Petitioner,vs.ERMAYBALLE,NELIAANGEL,ELEUTERIACORTEZandEVELYNONG,Respondents.

DECISION

VILLARAMA,JR.,J.:

The consolidated petitions before us involve the legality of mass termination of hospital employees whoparticipatedinstrikeandpicketingactivities.

Thefactualantecedents:

Metro Cebu Community Hospital, Inc. (MCCHI), presently known as the Visayas Community Medical Center(VCMC), is a nonstock, nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. ItoperatestheMetroCebuCommunityHospital(MCCH),atertiarymedicalinstitutionlocatedatOsmeaBoulevard,CebuCity.MCCHisownedbytheUnitedChurchofChristinthePhilippines(UCCP)andRev.GregorioP.IyoyistheHospitalAdministrator.

TheNationalFederationofLabor(NFL)istheexclusivebargainingrepresentativeoftherankandfileemployeesofMCCHI.Under the1987and1991CollectiveBargainingAgreements (CBAs), thesignatorieswereCiriacoB.Pongasi, Sr. for MCCHI, and Atty. Armando M. Alforque (NFL Legal Counsel) and Paterno A. Lumapguid asPresidentofNFLMCCHChapter.IntheCBAeffectivefromJanuary1994untilDecember31,1995,thesignatorieswereSheilaE.BuotasBoardofTrusteesChairman,Rev.IyoyasMCCHAdministratorandAtty.FernandoYuasLegal Counsel of NFL, while Perla Nava, President of Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa MCCH (NAMAMCCHNFL)signedtheProofofPosting.1

OnDecember6,1995,NavawroteRev. Iyoyexpressing theunionsdesire to renew theCBA,attaching toherletterastatementofproposalssigned/endorsedby153unionmembers.Navasubsequently requested that thefollowing employees be allowed to avail of oneday union leavewith pay onDecember 19, 1995:CeliaSabas,Jesusa Gerona, Albina Baez, Eddie Villa, Roy Malazarte, Ernesto Canen, Jr., Guillerma Remocaldo, CatalinaAlsado,EvelynOng,MelodiaPaulin,SofiaBautista,HannahBongcaras,EsterVillarin, IluminadaWenceslaoandPerlaNava.However,MCCHI returned theCBAproposal forNava to secure first the endorsement of the legalcounselofNFLastheofficialbargainingrepresentativeofMCCHIemployees.2

Meanwhile,Atty.AlforqueinformedMCCHIthattheproposedCBAsubmittedbyNavawasneverreferredtoNFLandthatNFLhasnotauthorizedanyotherlegalcounseloranypersonforcollectivebargainingnegotiations.ByJanuary1996,thecollectionofunionfees(checkoff)wastemporarilysuspendedbyMCCHIinviewoftheexistingconflict between the federationand its local affiliate.Thereafter,MCCHIattempted to takeover the roombeingusedasunionofficebutwaspreventedtodosobyNavaandhergroupwhoprotestedtheseactionsandinsistedthatmanagementdirectlynegotiatewiththemforanewCBA.MCCHIreferredthemattertoAtty.Alforque,NFLsRegionalDirector,andadvisedNavathattheirgroupisnotrecognizedbyNFL.3

InhisletterdatedFebruary24,1996addressedtoNava,ErnestoCanen,Jr.,JesusaGerona,HannahBongcaras,Emma Remocaldo, Catalina Alsado and Albina Baez, Atty. Alforque suspended their union membership forseriousviolationoftheConstitutionandByLaws.Saidletterstates:

During the lastGeneralMembershipMeetingof theuniononFebruary20,1996,youopenlydeclared thatyourecognizedtheofficersoftheKMUnotthoseoftheNFL,thatyousubmittothestuctures[sic]andauthorityoftheKMUnotoftheNFL,andthatyouareloyalonlytotheKMUnottotheNFL.

Also,inthesamemeeting,youadmittedhavingsentaproposalforarenewedcollectivebargainingagreementtothemanagementwithoutanyconsultationwiththeNFL.Infact,inyourletterdatedFebruary21,1996addressedtoRev.GregorioIyoy,theAdministratorofthehospital,youcategoricallystatedasfollows:"WedonotneedanyendorsementfromNFL,moreparticularlyfromAtty.ArmandoAlforquetonegotiateourCBAwithMCCH."Youdidnotonly ignore theauthorityof theundersignedasRegionalDirectorbutyoumaliciouslypreventedandbluntlyrefusedmyrequesttojointheunionnegotiatingpanelintheCBAnegotiations.

Youraboveflagrantactuations,madeinthepresenceoftheunionmembership,constitutethefollowingoffenses:

1.Willfulviolationof theConstitutionandByLawsof theFederationandtheordersanddecisionsofdulyconstitutedauthoritiesofthesame(Section4(b),ArticleIII),namely:

a)DefyingthedecisionoftheorganizationdisaffiliatingfromtheKMUand

b)Section9(b),ArticleIXwhichpertainstothepowersandresponsibilitiesoftheRegionalDirector,particularly,tonegotiateandsigncollectivebargainingagreementtogetherwiththelocalnegotiatingpanelsubjecttopriorratificationbythegeneralmembership

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


2.JoiningorassistinganotherlabororganizationorhelpingintheformationofanewlabororganizationthatseeksortendstodefeatthepurposeoftheFederation(Section4(d),ArticleIII)inrelationtotheNationalExecutiveBoardsResolutionNo.8,September2627,1994,towit:

"PursuanttotheNEBResolutiondisaffiliatingfromtheKMUdatedSeptember11,1993,theNEBinsessionherebydeclare thatKMU isdeemedanorganization thatseeks todefeat theobjectiveofestablishing independentanddemocraticunionsandseekstoreplacetheFederationasexclusiverepresentativeofitsmembers.

Committingacts that tend to alienate the loyalty of themembers to theFederation, subvert its duly constitutedauthorities, and divide the organization in any level with the objective of establishing a proKMU faction orindependent union loyal to theKMUshall be subject to disciplinary action, suspension or expulsion fromunionmembership,officeorpositioninaccordancewithparagraph[s]dandfofSection4,ArticleIII,andparagraphh,Section6,ArticleVI,paragraphd,Section9,ArticleIX."

Youare, therefore,directedtosubmitwrittenexplanationontheabovechargeswithin five(5)daysfromreceipthereof.Failureon yourpart shall be consideredawaiver of your right tobeheardand theFederationwill actaccordingly.

Considering thegravityof thechargesagainstyou, thecriticalnatureof theundertakingtorenewthecollectivebargaining agreement, and the serious threat you posed to the organization, you are hereby placed undertemporary suspension from your office andmembership in the union immediately upon receipt hereof pendinginvestigationandfinaldispositionofyourcaseinaccordancewiththeunionsconstitutionandbylaws.

Foryourguidanceandcompliance.4

OnFebruary26,1996,upon therequestofAtty.Alforque,MCCHIgrantedonedayunion leavewithpay for12unionmembers.5Thenextday, severalunionmembers ledbyNavaandhergroup launchedaseriesofmassactionssuchaswearingblackandredarmbands/headbands,marchingaroundthehospitalpremisesandputtingupplacards,postersandstreamers.Atty.Alforqueimmediatelydisownedtheconcertedactivitiesbeingcarriedoutby unionmemberswhich are not sanctioned byNFL.MCCHI directed the union officers led byNava to submitwithin48hoursawrittenexplanationwhy theyshouldnotbe terminated forhavingengaged in illegalconcertedactivities amounting to strike, and placed them under immediate preventive suspension. Responding to thisdirective,Navaandhergroupdenied therewasa temporarystoppageofwork,explaining thatemployeesworetheirarmbandsonlyasasignofprotestandreiteratingtheirdemandforMCCHItocomplywithitsdutytobargaincollectively.Rev.Iyoy,havingbeeninformedthatNavaandhergrouphavealsobeensuspendedbyNFL,directedsaidofficerstoappearbeforehisofficeforinvestigationinconnectionwiththeillegalstrikewhereintheyreportedlyutteredslanderousandscurrilouswordsagainsttheofficersofthehospital,threateningotherworkersandforcingthem to join the strike. Said union officers, however, invoked the grievance procedure provided in theCBA tosettlethedisputebetweenmanagementandtheunion.6

OnMarch 13 and 19, 1996, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office No. 7 issuedcertificationsstatingthatthereisnothingintheirrecordswhichshowsthatNAMAMCCHNFLisaregisteredlabororganization,and thatsaidunionsubmittedonlyacopyof itsCharterCertificateonJanuary31,1995.7MCCHIthensentindividualnoticestoallunionmembersaskingthemtosubmitwithin72hoursawrittenexplanationwhytheyshouldnotbeterminatedforhavingsupportedtheillegalconcertedactivitiesofNAMAMCCHNFLwhichhasno legal personality as perDOLE records. In their collective response/statement datedMarch 18, 1996, itwasexplained that the picketing employees wore armbands to protest MCCHIs refusal to bargain it was alsocontended that MCCHI cannot question the legal personality of the union which had actively assisted in CBAnegotiationsandimplementation.8

OnMarch13,1996,NAMAMCCHNFLfiledaNoticeofStrikebutthesamewasdeemednotfiledforwantoflegalpersonalityonthepartofthefiler.TheNationalConciliationandMediationBoard(NCMB)Region7officelikewisedenied their motion for reconsideration on March 25, 1996. Despite such rebuff, Nava and her group stillconductedastrikevoteonApril2,1996duringwhichanoverwhelmingmajorityofunionmembersapprovedthestrike.9

Meanwhile, the scheduled investigations did not push through because the striking unionmembers insisted onattending the same only as a group. MCCHI again sent notices informing them that their refusal to submit toinvestigation is deemed a waiver of their right to explain their side andmanagement shall proceed to imposeproperdisciplinaryactionunder thecircumstances.OnMarch30,1996,MCCHIsent termination letters tounionleadersandothermemberswhoparticipatedinthestrikeandpicketingactivities.OnApril8,1996,italsoissuedaceaseanddesist order to the rest of the striking employees stressing that the wildcat concerted activitiesspearheadedbytheNavagroupisillegalwithoutavalidNoticeofStrikeandwarningthemthatnoncompliancewillcompelmanagement to imposedisciplinaryactionsagainst them.For theircontinuedpicketingactivitiesdespitethesaidwarning,morethan100strikingemployeesweredismissedeffectiveApril12and19,1996.

Unfazed, the striking union members held more mass actions. The means of ingress to and egress from thehospitalwereblockedsothatvehiclescarryingpatientsandemployeeswerebarredfromenteringthepremises.Placardswereplacedatthehospitalsentrancegatestating:"Pleaseproceedtoanotherhospital"and"weareonprotest."Employeesandpatientsreportedactsofintimidationandharassmentperpetratedbyunionleadersandmembers.With the intensifiedatmosphereof violenceandanimositywithin thehospital premisesasa result ofcontinuedprotestactivitiesbyunionmembers,MCCHIsufferedheavylossesdueto lowpatientadmissionrates.

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


Thehospitalssuppliersalsorefusedtomakefurtherdeliveriesoncredit.

With thevolatile situationadverselyaffectinghospital operationsand theconditionof confinedpatients,MCCHIfiled a petition for injunction in the NLRC (Cebu City) on July 9, 1996 (Injunction Case No. V000696). Atemporary restraining order (TRO) was issued on July 16, 1996. MCCHI presented 12 witnesses (hospitalemployeesandpatients), includinga security guardwhowas stabbedby an identified sympathizerwhile in thecompanyofNavasgroup.MCCHIspetitionwasgrantedandapermanentinjunctionwasissuedonSeptember18,1996enjoiningtheNavagroupfromcommittingillegalactsmentionedinArt.264oftheLaborCode.10

OnAugust27,1996,theCityGovernmentofCebuorderedthedemolitionofthestructuresandobstructionsputupbythepicketingemployeesofMCCHIalongthesidewalk,havingdeterminedthesameasapublicnuisanceornuisanceperse.11

Thereafter, several complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice were filed by the terminatedemployeesagainstMCCHI,Rev.Iyoy,UCCPandmembersoftheBoardofTrusteesofMCCHI.

On August 4, 1999, Executive Labor Arbiter Reynoso A. Belarmino rendered his decision12 dismissing thecomplaintsforunfairlaborpracticeinNLRCCaseNos.RABVII02030998,RABVII02039498andRABVII03059698 filed by Nava and 90 other complainants. Executive Labor Arbiter Belarmino found no basis for thechargeofunfair laborpracticeanddeclared thestrikeandpicketingactivities illegalhavingbeenconductedbyNAMAMCCHNFLwhich is not a legitimate labor organization. The termination of union leaders Nava, Alsado,Baez, Bongcaras, Canen, Gerona and Remocaldo were upheld as valid but MCCHI was directed to grantseparationpayequivalenttoonehalfmonthforeveryyearofservice,inthetotalamountofP3,085,897.40forthe84complainants.13

Complainants appealed to the Commission. On March 14, 2001, the NLRCs Fourth Division rendered itsDecision,14thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint forunfair labor practice and illegal dismissal is AFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONS declaring the dismissal of all thecomplainantsinRABCaseNo.0702039498andRABCaseNo.0703059698validandlegal.Necessarily,theawardofseparationpayandattorneysfeesareherebyDeleted.

ResolutiononRABCaseNo.0702030998isherebyDeferreduponJointMotionoftheparties.

SOORDERED.15

InitsResolutiondatedJuly2,2001,theNLRCdeniedcomplainantsmotionforreconsideration.16

ComplainantselevatedthecasetotheCourtofAppeals(CA)(CebuStation)viaapetitionforcertiorari,docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.66540.17

InitsResolutiondatedNovember14,2001,theCAsEighthDivisiondismissedthepetitiononthegroundthatoutof88petitionersonly47havesignedthecertificationagainstforumshopping.18Petitionersmovedtoreconsiderthesaiddismissalarguingthatthe47signatoriesmorethanconstitutetheprincipalpartiesasthepetitioninvolvesamatter of common concern to all the petitioning employees.19 ByResolution20 datedMay 28, 2002, the CAreinstatedthecaseonlyinsofarasthe47petitionerswhosignedthepetitionareconcerned.

PetitionerschallengedthevalidityoftheNovember14,2001andMay28,2002resolutionsbeforethisCourtinapetitionforreviewoncertiorari,docketedasG.R.No.154113.

Meanwhile, theNLRCsFourthDivision(CebuCity)rendered itsDecision21datedMarch12,2003 inRABCaseNos.0702030998 (NLRCCaseNo.V00104299)pertaining to complainantsErmaYballe,EvelynOng,NeliaAngelandEleuteriaCortezasfollows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter dismissing the complaint forunfair laborpracticeand illegaldismissal isAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONSdeclaringallcomplainants tohavebeenvalidlydismissed.Necessarily,theawardofseparationpayandattorneysfeesareherebyDeleted.

SOORDERED.22

TheNLRClikewisedeniedthemotionforreconsiderationfiledbycomplainantsYballe,etal.initsResolutiondatedApril13,2004.23

OnOctober17,2008,theCArendereditsDecision24 inCAG.R.SPNo.66540,thedispositiveportionofwhichstates:

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedAFFIRMINGtheDecisionoftheNationalLaborRelationsCommission (NLRC) FourthDivision datedMarch 14, 2001 inNLRCCaseNo.V00104299,WITHMODIFICATIONStotheeffectthat(1)thepetitioners,excepttheunionofficers,shallbeawardedseparationpayequivalenttoonehalf(1/2)monthpayforeveryyearofservice,and(2)petitionerCeciliaSabasshallbeawarded

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


overtimepayamountingtosixtythree(63)hours.

SOORDERED.25

Petitioners filedamotion for reconsiderationwhileprivate respondents filedamotion forpartial reconsiderationquestioningtheawardofseparationpay.TheformeralsoinvokedthedecisionofthisCourtinBasconv.CourtofAppeals,26whilethelatterarguedfortheapplicationoftherulingindecisionrenderedbytheCA(CebuCity) inMiculobv.NLRC,etal.(CAG.R.SPNo.84538),27bothinvolvingsimilarcomplaintsfiledbydismissedemployeesofMCCHI.

ByResolution28datedApril17,2009,theCAdeniedbothmotions:

WHEREFORE, the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration and the private respondent[s] Motion for PartialReconsiderationoftheOctober17,2008DecisionarebothDENIEDforlackofmerit.

TheMotionsforSubstitutionofCounselandCompromiseAgreementssubmittedbypetitionersBernarditoLawas,AvelinaBangalao,DailendaHinampasandDaylindaTigoareherebyapproved.Consequently,saidpetitionersareordereddroppedfromthelistofpetitionersandthecaseisdeemeddismissedastothem.

SOORDERED.29

Complainants Yballe, et al. also challenged before the CA the March 12, 2003 Decision and April 13, 2004ResolutionoftheNLRCinapetitionforcertiorari,docketedasCAG.R.SPNo.84998(CebuCity).ByDecision30datedNovember7,2008,theCAgrantedtheirpetition,asfollows:

WHEREFORE,thechallengedDecisionofpublicrespondentdatedMarch12,2003anditsResolutiondatedApril13,2004areherebyREVERSEDANDSETASIDE.PrivaterespondentMetroCebuCommunityHospitalisorderedtoreinstatepetitionersErmaYballe,EleuteriaCortes,NeliaAngelandEvelynOngwithoutlossofseniorityrightsandotherprivileges topay themtheir fullbackwages inclusiveof theirallowancesandotherbenefitscomputedfromthetimeoftheirdismissaluptothetimeoftheiractualreinstatement.

Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.31

Private respondents (MCCHI,etal.)moved to reconsider theabovedecisionbut theCAdenied theirmotiononFebruary22,2011.32

Bothpetitioners andprivate respondents inCAG.R.SPNo. 66540appealed to thisCourt.Private respondentMCCHIinCAG.R.SPNo.84998,underitsnewnameVisayasCommunityMedicalCenter(VCMC),filedapetitionforcertiorariinthisCourt.

InG.R.No. 187778, petitionersNava, et al. prayed that theCAdecision be set aside and a new judgment beentered by this Court (1) declaring private respondents guilty of unfair labor practice and union busting (2)directing private respondents to cease and desist from further committing unfair labor practices against thepetitioners(3)imposinguponMCCHtheproposedCBAor,inthealternative,directingthehospitalanditsofficersto bargain with the local union (4) declaring private respondents guilty of unlawfully suspending and illegallydismissing the individual petitionersemployees (5) directing private respondents to reinstate petitionersemployees to their former positions, or their equivalent,without loss of seniority rightswith full backwages andbenefits until reinstatement and (6) ordering private respondents to pay the petitioners moral damages,exemplarydamages,legalinterests,andattorneysfees.33

Ontheotherhand,petitionerMCCHIinG.R.No.187861prayedforthemodificationoftheCAdecisionbydeletingtheawardofseparationpayandreinstatingtheMarch14,2001decisionoftheNLRC.34

InG.R.No.196156,MCCHI/VCMCprayedfortheannulmentoftheNovember7,2008DecisionandFebruary22,2011ResolutionoftheCA,forthisCourttodeclarethedismissalofrespondentsYballe,etal.asvalidandlegalandtoreinstatetheMarch12,2003DecisionandApril13,2004ResolutionoftheNLRC.

G.R. No. 187861 was consolidated with G.R. Nos. 154113 and 187778 as they involve similar factualcircumstances and identical or related issues. G.R. No. 196156was later also consolidated with the aforesaidcases.

The issues are: (1)whether theCA erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari (CAG.R.SPNo. 66540)withrespecttothepetitionersinG.R.No.154113fortheirfailuretosignthecertificationagainstforumshopping(2)whetherMCCHIisguiltyofunfairlaborpractice(3)whetherpetitioningemployeeswereillegallydismissedand(4)iftheirterminationwasillegal,whetherpetitioningemployeesareentitledtoseparationpay,backwages,damagesandattorneysfees.

Droppingofpetitionerswhodidnotsignthecertificationagainstforumshoppingimproper

TheCourthaslaiddowntheruleinAltresv.Empleo35asculledfrom"jurisprudentialpronouncements", thatthe

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


certificationagainst forumshoppingmustbesignedbyall theplaintiffsorpetitioners inacaseotherwise, thosewhodidnotsignwillbedroppedaspartiestothecase.Underreasonableorjustifiablecircumstances,however,aswhenalltheplaintiffsorpetitionersshareacommoninterestandinvokeacommoncauseofactionordefense,thesignatureofonlyoneoftheminthecertificationagainstforumshoppingsubstantiallycomplieswiththeRule.

Inthecaseatbar,thesignaturesof47outof88petitioningemployeesinthecertificationagainstforumshoppingconstitute substantial compliance with the rule. There is no question that they shared a common interest andinvokedacommoncauseofactionwhentheyfiledsuitbeforetheLaborArbiterandNLRCquestioningthevalidityoftheirterminationandchargingMCCHIwithunfairlaborpractice.Thus,whentheyappealedtheircasetotheCA,theypursuedthesameasacollectivebody,raisingonlyoneargumentinsupportoftheircauseofaction,i.e.,theillegaldismissalallegedlycommittedbyMCCHIwhenunionmembersresorted tostrikeandmassactionsdue toMCCHIs refusal to bargain with officers of the local chapter. There is sufficient basis, therefore, for the 47signatoriestothepetition,tospeakforandinbehalfoftheircopetitionersandtofilethePetitionforCertiorariinthe appellate court.36 Clearly, the CA erred in dropping as partiespetitioners those who did not sign thecertificationagainstforumshopping. la v v p h il

However, instead of remanding the case to the CA for it to resolve the petition with respect to the hereinpetitionersinG.R.No.154113,andasprayedfor,theCourtshallconsiderthempartiespetitionersinCAG.R.SPNo.66540,whichcasehasalreadybeendecidedandnowsubjectofappealinG.R.No.187778.

MCCHInotguiltyofunfairlaborpractice

Art.248(g)oftheLaborCode,asamended,makesitanunfairlaborpracticeforanemployer"[t]oviolatethedutytobargaincollectively"asprescribedbytheCode.TheapplicableprovisioninthiscaseisArt.253whichprovides:

ART. 253.Duty to bargain collectivelywhen there exists a collective bargaining agreement. When there is acollectivebargainingagreement,thedutytobargaincollectivelyshallalsomeanthatneitherpartyshallterminatenormodify such agreement during its lifetime.However, either party can serve awritten notice to terminate ormodifytheagreementatleastsixty(60)dayspriortoitsexpirationdate.Itshallbethedutyofbothpartiestokeepthestatusquoandtocontinueinfull forceandeffectthetermsandconditionsof theexistingagreementduringthe60dayperiodand/oruntilanewagreementisreachedbytheparties.

NAMAMCCHNFLchargedMCCHIwithrefusaltobargaincollectivelywhenthelatterrefusedtomeetandconvenefor purposes of collective bargaining, or at least give a counterproposal to the proposed CBA the union hadsubmitted and which was ratified by a majority of the union membership. MCCHI, on its part, deferred anynegotiationsuntilthelocalunionsdisputewiththenationalunionfederation(NFL)isresolvedconsideringthatthelatter is the exclusive bargaining agent which represented the rankandfile hospital employees in CBAnegotiationssince1987.

WeruleforMCCHI.

Records of the NCMB and DOLE Region 7 confirmed that NAMAMCCHNFL had not registered as a labororganization, having submitted only its charter certificate as an affiliate or local chapter ofNFL.37 Not being alegitimate labor organization, NAMAMCCHNFL is not entitled to those rights granted to a legitimate labororganizationunderArt.242,specifically:

(a)Toactastherepresentativeofitsmembersforthepurposeofcollectivebargaining

(b) To be certified as the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate collectivebargainingunitforpurposesofcollectivebargaining

xxxx

Asidefromtheregistrationrequirement,itisonlythelabororganizationdesignatedorselectedbythemajorityoftheemployeesinanappropriatecollectivebargainingunitwhichistheexclusiverepresentativeoftheemployeesinsuchunitforthepurposeofcollectivebargaining,asprovidedinArt.255.38NAMAMCCHNFLisnotthelabororganizationcertifiedordesignatedby themajorityof the rankandfilehospitalemployees to represent them intheCBAnegotiationsbuttheNFL,asevidencedbyCBAsconcludedin1987,1991and1994.Whileitistruethatalocalunionhastherighttodisaffiliatefromthenationalfederation,NAMAMCCHNFLhasnotdonesoastherewas no any effort on its part to comply with the legal requisites for a valid disaffiliation during the "freedomperiod"39 or the last 60 days of the last year of the CBA, through a majority vote in a secret balloting inaccordancewithArt.241(d).40NavaandhergroupsimplydemandedthatMCCHIdirectlynegotiatewiththelocalunionwhichhasnotevenregisteredasone.

Toprovemajoritysupportof theemployees,NAMAMCCHNFLpresentedtheCBAproposalallegedlysignedby153 unionmembers. However, the petition signed by saidmembers showed that the signatories endorsed theproposedtermsandconditionswithoutstatingthattheywerelikewisevotingforordesignatingtheNAMAMCCHNFLastheirexclusivebargainingrepresentative.Inanycase,NAMAMCCHNFLatthetimeofsubmissionofsaidproposalswasnotaduly registered labororganization,hence it cannot legally representMCCHIs rankandfileemployees for purposes of collective bargaining. Hence, even assuming that NAMAMCCHNFL had validlydisaffiliatedfromitsmotherunion,NFL,itstilldidnotpossessthelegalpersonalitytoenterintoCBAnegotiations.A local unionwhich is not independently registered cannot, upondisaffiliation from the federation, exercise therightsandprivilegesgrantedbylawtolegitimatelabororganizationsthus,itcannotfileapetitionforcertification

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


election.41Besides,theNFLasthemotherunionhastherighttoinvestigatemembersofitslocalchapterunderthefederationsConstitutionandByLaws,andiffoundguiltytoexpelsuchmembers.42MCCHIthereforecannotbe faulted for deferring action on the CBA proposal submitted by NAMAMCCHNFL in view of the unionleaderships conflict with the national federation.We have held that the issue of disaffiliation is an intrauniondispute43whichmustberesolvedinadifferentforuminanactionattheinstanceofeitherorboththefederationandthelocalunionorarivallabororganization,nottheemployer.44

Not being a legitimate labor organization nor the certified exclusive bargaining representative ofMCCHIs rankandfile employees, NAMAMCCHNFL cannot demand from MCCHI the right to bargain collectively in theirbehalf.45 Hence,MCCHIs refusal to bargain thenwithNAMAMCCHNFL cannot be considered an unfair laborpracticetojustifythestagingofthestrike.46

Strikeandpicketingactivitiesconductedbyunionofficersandmemberswereillegal

Art.263(b)oftheLaborCode,asamended,provides:

ART.263.Strikes,picketingandlockouts.xxx

(b)Workersshallhavetherighttoengageinconcertedactivitiesforpurposesofcollectivebargainingorfortheirmutualbenefitandprotection.Therightoflegitimatelabororganizationstostrikeandpicketandofemployerstolockout, consistentwith thenational interest, shall continue tobe recognizedand respected.However,no laborunion may strike and no employer may declare a lockout on grounds involving interunion and intrauniondisputes.

xxxx(Emphasissupplied.)

Asbornebytherecords,NAMAMCCHNFLwasnotadulyregisteredoranindependentlyregisteredunionatthetimeitfiledthenoticeofstrikeonMarch13,1996andwhenitconductedthestrikevoteonApril2,1996.Itcouldnot then legally represent theunionmembers.Consequently, themandatorynoticeofstrikeand theconductofthe strike vote reportwere ineffective for having been filed and conducted byNAMAMCCHNFLwhich has nolegalpersonalityasalegitimatelabororganization,inviolationofArt.263(c),(d)and(f)oftheLaborCodeandRuleXXII,BookVoftheOmnibusRulesImplementingtheLaborCode.47

Art.263oftheLaborCodeprovides:

ART.263.Strikes,picketingandlockouts.(a)xxx

xxxx

(c)Incasesofbargainingdeadlocks,thedulycertifiedorrecognizedbargainingagentmayfileanoticeofstrikeortheemployermayfileanoticeoflockoutwiththeDepartmentatleast30daysbeforetheintendeddatethereof.Incases of unfair labor practice, the period of notice shall be 15 days and in the absence of a duly certified orrecognizedbargainingagent,thenoticeofstrikemaybefiledbyanylegitimatelabororganizationinbehalfofitsmembers.However, in caseof dismissal fromemploymentof unionofficersdulyelected inaccordancewith theunionconstitutionandbylaws,whichmayconstituteunionbusting,wheretheexistenceoftheunionisthreatened,the 15day coolingoff period shall not apply and the union may take action immediately. (As amended byExecutiveOrderNo.111,December24,1986.)

(d)Thenoticemustbe inaccordancewithsuchimplementingrulesandregulationsastheDepartmentofLaborandEmploymentmaypromulgate.

xxxx

(f)Adecisiontodeclareastrikemustbeapprovedbyamajorityofthetotalunionmembershipinthebargainingunitconcerned,obtainedbysecretballotinmeetingsorreferendacalledforthatpurpose.Adecisiontodeclarealockout must be approved by a majority of the board of directors of the corporation or association or of thepartners inapartnership, obtainedby secret ballot inameeting called for that purpose.Thedecision shall bevalid for the duration of the dispute based on substantially the same grounds considered when the strike orlockout vote was taken. The Department may, at its own initiative or upon the request of any affected party,supervisetheconductof thesecretballoting. Ineverycase, theunionor theemployershall furnishtheMinistrythe voting at least seven days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the coolingoff period hereinprovided. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, August 21, 1981 and further amended by ExecutiveOrderNo.111,December24,1986.)(Emphasissupplied.)

RuleXXII,BookVoftheOmnibusRulesImplementingtheLaborCodereads:

RULEXXIICONCILIATION,STRIKESANDLOCKOUTS

xxxx

SEC.6.Whomaydeclareastrikeor lockout.Anycertifiedordulyrecognizedbargainingrepresentativemaydeclareastrikeincasesofbargainingdeadlocksandunfairlaborpractices.Theemployermaydeclarealockout

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


inthesamecases.Intheabsenceofacertifiedordulyrecognizedbargainingrepresentative,anylegitimatelabororganization in the establishmentmay declare a strike but only on grounds of unfair labor practice. (Emphasissupplied.)

Furthermore, the strikewas illegal due to the commission of the following prohibited activities48 : (1) violence,coercion,intimidationandharassmentagainstnonparticipatingemployeesand(2)blockingoffreeingresstoandegress from the hospital, including preventing patients and their vehicles from entering the hospital and otheremployees from reporting to work, the putting up of placards with a statement advising incoming patients toproceed to another hospital because MCCHI employees are on strike/protest. As shown by photographs49submittedbyMCCHI,aswellasthefindingsoftheNCMBandCebuCityGovernment,thehospitalpremisesandsidewalkwithinitsvicinitywerefullofplacards,streamersandmakeshiftstructuresthatobstructeditsusebythepublicwhowerelikewisebarragedbythenoisecomingfromstrikersusingmegaphones.50Ontheotherhand,theaffidavits51executedbyseveralhospitalemployeesandpatientsnarrated indetail the incidentsofharassment,intimidation, violence and coercion, some of these witnesses have positively identified the perpetrators. TheprolongedworkstoppageandpicketingactivitiesofthestrikingemployeesseverelydisruptedhospitaloperationsthatMCCHIsufferedheavyfinanciallosses.

ThefindingsoftheExecutiveLaborArbiterandNLRC,assustainedbytheappellatecourt,clearlyestablishedthatthe striking union members created so much noise, disturbance and obstruction that the local governmentauthoritieseventuallyorderedtheirremoval forbeingapublicnuisance.Thiswasfollowedbyan injunctionfromtheNCMBenjoiningtheunionleadersfromfurtherblockingthefreeingresstoandegressfromthehospital,andfromcommittingthreats,coercionandintimidationagainstnonstrikingemployeesandpatients/vehiclesdesiringtoenter for thepurposeofseekingmedical treatment/confinement.By then, the illegalstrikehad lasted foralmostfivemonths.

Consequencesofillegalstriketounionofficersandmembers

Art.264(a)oftheLaborCode,asamended,providesfortheconsequencesofanillegalstriketotheparticipatingworkers:

xxxAnyunionofficerwhoknowinglyparticipates in illegalstrikeandanyworkerorunionofficerwhoknowinglyparticipatesinthecommissionofillegalactsduringastrikemaybedeclaredtohavelosthisemploymentstatus:Provided,Thatmereparticipationofaworkerinalawfulstrikeshallnotconstitutesufficientgroundforterminationofhisemployment,evenifareplacementhadbeenhiredbytheemployerduringsuchlawfulstrike.

Theaboveprovisionmakesadistinctionbetweenworkersandunionofficerswhoparticipateinanillegalstrike:anordinarystrikingworkercannotbeterminatedformereparticipationinanillegalstrike.Theremustbeproofthatheorshecommittedillegalactsduringastrike.Aunionofficer,ontheotherhand,maybeterminatedfromworkwhenheknowinglyparticipatesinanillegalstrike,andlikeotherworkers,whenhecommitsanillegalactduringastrike.52

Consideringtheirpersistence inholdingpicketingactivitiesdespite thedeclarationbytheNCMBthat theirunionwasnotduly registeredasa legitimate labororganizationand the letter fromNFLs legalcounsel informing thattheiractsconstitutedisloyalty to thenational federation,and their filingof thenoticeofstrikeandconductingastrike vote notwithstanding that their union has no legal personality to negotiate with MCCHI for collectivebargaining purposes, there is no question that NAMAMCCHNFL officers knowingly participated in the illegalstrike.TheCA thereforedidnoterr in ruling that the terminationofunionofficersPerlaNava,CatalinaAlsado,Albina Baez, Hannah Bongcaras, Ernesto Canen, Jesusa Gerona and Guillerma Remocaldo was valid andjustified.

Withrespecttothedismissedunionmembers,althoughMCCHIsubmittedphotographstakenatthepicketline,itdidnotindividuallynamethosestrikingemployeesandspecifytheillegalactcommittedbyeachofthem.Astotheaffidavitsexecutedbynonstrikingemployees,theyidentifiedmostlyunionofficersasthepersonswhoblockedthehospital entrance, harassedhospital employeesandpatientswhose vehicleswereprevented fromentering thepremises. Only some of these witnesses actually named a few union members who committed similar acts ofharassmentandcoercion.Consequently,wefindnoerrorcommittedbytheCAinCAG.R.SPNo.66540whenitmodifiedthedecisionoftheNLRCandruledthatthedismissalofunionmemberswhomerelyparticipatedintheillegalstrikewasillegal.Ontheotherhand,inCAG.R.SPNo.84998,theCAdidnoterrinrulingthatthedismissalofYballe,etal.wasillegalhowever,italsoorderedtheirreinstatementwithfullbackwages.

Dismissed union members not entitled to backwages but should be awarded separation pay in lieu ofreinstatement

Sincethereisnoclearproofthatunionmembersactuallyparticipatedinthecommissionofillegalactsduringthestrike,theyarenotdeemedtohavelosttheiremploymentstatusasaconsequenceofadeclarationofillegalityofthestrike.

Petitioners inG.R.Nos.154113and187778assail theCA innotordering their reinstatementwithbackwages.Invoking staredecisis, they cited the caseofBascon v.Court ofAppeals53 decidedby thisCourt in 2004andwhich involved two former hospital employees who likewise sued MCCHI after the latter terminated theiremploymentduetotheirparticipationinthesameillegalstrikeledbyNAMAMCCHNFL.InsaidcaseweruledthatpetitionersColeandBasconwere illegallydismissedbecauseMCCHI failed toprove that theycommitted illegal

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


actsduringthestrike.WethusorderedthereinstatementofpetitionersBasconandColewithoutlossofseniorityrightsandotherprivilegesandpaymentoftheirbackwagesinclusiveofallowances,andotherbenefitscomputedfromthetimetheyweredismisseduptothetimeoftheiractualreinstatement.Basconwasalsothebasisof theawardofbackwagesinCAG.R.SPNo.84998.

Staredecisisetnonquietamovere.Standbythedecisionanddisturbnotwhat issettled.Under thedoctrineofstaredecisis,onceacourthaslaiddownaprincipleoflawasapplicabletoacertainstateoffacts,itwilladheretothatprincipleandapplyittoallfuturecaseswherethefactsaresubstantiallythesame,54eventhoughthepartiesmay be different. It proceeds from the first principle of justice that, absent any powerful countervailingconsiderations,likecasesoughttobedecidedalike.Thus,wherethesamequestionsrelatingtothesameeventhavebeenput forwardbypartiessimilarly situatedas inapreviouscase litigatedanddecidedbyacompetentcourt,theruleofstaredecisisisabartoanyattempttorelitigatethesameissue.55

The doctrine though is not cast in stone for upon a showing that circumstances attendant in a particular caseoverridethegreatbenefitsderivedbyourjudicialsystemfromthedoctrineofstaredecisis,theCourtisjustifiedinsetting it aside.56 For the Court, as the highest court of the land, may be guided but is not controlled byprecedent.Thus,theCourt,especiallywithanewmembership,isnotobligedtofollowblindlyaparticulardecisionthatitdetermines,afterreexamination,tocallforarectification.57

Although theBasconcase involved theverysame illegal strike inMCCHIwhich led to the terminationofhereinpetitioners, itsclearlyerroneousapplicationof the law insofaronlyas theawardofbackwageswarrantssettingasidethedoctrine. Indeed, thedoctrineofstaredecisisnotwithstanding, theCourthasabandonedoroverruledprecedentswheneveritrealizedthattheCourterredinthepriordecisions."Afterall,moreimportantthananythingelseisthatthisCourtshouldberight."58

InG&STransportCorporationv.Infante,59theCourtexplainedtherationaleforitsrecentrulingsdeletingbackwagesawardedtothedismissedworkersifthestrikewasfoundtobeillegal.Consideringthattheydidnotrenderworkfortheemployerduringthestrike,theyareentitledonlytoreinstatement.

Withrespecttobackwages,theprincipleofa"fairdayswageforafairdayslabor"remainsasthebasicfactorindeterminingtheawardthereof.Ifthereisnoworkperformedbytheemployeetherecanbenowageorpayunless,ofcourse,thelaborerwasable,willingandreadytoworkbutwasillegallylockedout,suspendedordismissedorotherwiseillegallypreventedfromworking.Whileitwasfoundthatrespondentsexpressedtheirintentiontoreportback to work, the latter exception cannot apply in this case. In Philippine Marine Officers Guild v. CompaiaMaritima,asaffirmedinPhilippineDiamondHotelandResortv.ManilaDiamondHotelEmployeesUnion,theCourtstressedthatforthisexceptiontoapply,itisrequiredthatthestrikebelegal,asituationthatdoesnotobtaininthecaseatbar.

Under the circumstances, respondents reinstatement without backwages suffices for the appropriate relief. Ifreinstatement isno longerpossible,given the lapseof considerable time from theoccurrenceof thestrike, theawardofseparationpayofone(1)monthsalaryforeachyearofservice, in lieuofreinstatement, is inorder.60(Emphasissupplied.)

TheCAdecisioninCAG.R.SPNo.66540orderingthepaymentofseparationpayinlieuofreinstatementwithoutbackwages is thus inorder, toconform to thepolicyofa fairdayswage fora fairdays labor.Theamountofseparationpayisincreasedtoonemonthpayforeveryyearofservice,consistentwithjurisprudence.Accordingly,thedecision inCAG.R.SPNo.84998ismodifiedbydeletingtheawardofbackwagesandgrantingseparationpayinlieuofreinstatement.

ItistobenotedthatasearlyasApril8,1996,unionmemberswhotookpartintheconcertedactivitieshavebeenwarnedbymanagement thatNAMAMCCHNFL isnota legitimate labororganizationand itsnoticeofstrikewasdenied by the NCMB, and directed to desist from further participating in such illegal activities. Despite suchwarning, theycontinuedwith their picketingactivitiesandheldmoremassactionsaftermanagement sent themtermination notices. The prolonged work stoppage seriously disrupted hospital operations, which could haveeventuallybroughtMCCHIintobankruptcyhadtheCityGovernmentofCebunotissuedademolitionorderandtheNLRC Region 7 not formally enjoined the prohibited picketing activities. Also, the illegal dismissal complaintssubsequentlyfiledbytheterminatedemployeesdidnotobliteratethefactthattheydidnotsufferlossofearningsby reason of the employers unjustified acts, there being no unfair labor practice committed byMCCHI.Hence,fairnessandjusticedictatethatbackwagesbedeniedthesaidemployeeswhoparticipatedintheillegalconcertedactivitiestothegreatdetrimentoftheemployer.

Separation pay is made an alternative relief in lieu of reinstatement in certain circumstances, like: (a) whenreinstatementcannolongerbeeffectedinviewofthepassageofalongperiodoftimeorbecauseoftherealitiesofthesituation(b)reinstatementisinimicaltotheemployersinterest(c)reinstatementisnolongerfeasible(d)reinstatement does not serve the best interests of the parties involved (e) the employer is prejudiced by theworkers continued employment (f) facts that make execution unjust or inequitable have supervened or (g)strainedrelationsbetweentheemployerandemployee.61

Considering that15yearshad lapsedfromtheonsetof this labordispute,and inviewofstrainedrelations thatensued, inaddition to the realityof replacementsalreadyhiredby thehospitalwhichhadapparently recoveredfrom its huge losses, and with many of the petitioners either employed elsewhere, already old and sickly, orotherwise incapacitated, separation pay without back wages is the appropriate relief.We note that during the

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


pendency of the cases in this Court, some of the petitioners have entered into compromise agreements withMCCHI,allofwhichweredulyapprovedbythisCourt.Thus,excludedfromthehereinmonetaryawardsare thefollowingpetitionerswhosecompromiseagreementshavebeenapprovedbythisCourtandjudgmenthavingbeenenteredtherein:GloriaArguilles,RomuloAlforque,GernaPatigdasBarte,DaylindaTigoMerlynNodado,RamonTagnipis, Bernabe Lumapguid, Romeo Empuerto, Marylen Labra, Milagros Castillo Bernadette PontillasTibay,ConstancioPagador,NolanAlvinPanal,EdilbertoVilla,RoyMalazarte,FelecianitaMalazarteandNoelHortelano.

Attorneysfees

Thedismissedemployeeshavingbeencompelledtolitigateinordertoseekredressandprotecttheirrights,theyare entitled to reasonable attorneys fees pursuant toArt. 2208 (2) of theCivil Code. In view of the attendantcircumstancesofthiscase,weholdthatattorneysfeesintheamountofP50,000.00isreasonableandjustified.However,therespondentsinG.R.No.196156arenotentitledtothesamereliefsincetheydidnotappealfromtheCAdecisionwhichdidnotincludetheawardofattorneysfees.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionforreviewoncertiorari inG.R.No.187861isDENIEDwhilethepetitionsinG.R.Nos.154113, 187778 and 196156 are PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated October 17, 2008 of the Court ofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.66540isherebyAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONSinthatMCCHIisorderedtopaythepetitioners in G.R. Nos. 154113 and 187778, except the petitioners who are union officers, separation payequivalent to one month pay for every year of service, and reasonable attorneys fees in the amount ofP50,000.00.TheDecisiondatedNovember7,2008islikewiseAFFIRMEDwithMODIFICATIONSinthatMCCHIisorderedtopaytheprivaterespondentsinG.R.No.196156separationpayequivalenttoonemonthpayforeveryyearofservice,andthattheawardofbackwagesisDELETED.

ThecaseisherebyremandedtotheExecutiveLaborArbiterfortherecomputationofseparationpayduetoeachof the petitioners unionmembers inG.R. Nos. 154113, 187778 and 196156 except thosewho have executedcompromiseagreementsapprovedbythisCourt.

Nopronouncementastocosts.

SOORDERED.

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONAChiefJusticeChairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROAssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMINAssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLOAssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIofthe1987Constitution,IcertifythattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONAChiefJustice

Footnotes

1NLRCrecords(Vol.I),pp.221234rollo(G.R.No.154113),pp.170205.

2Rollo(G.R.No.154113),pp.212235.

3Id.at236243.

4Id.at244245.

5Id.at246.

6Id.at247248,260263.

7NLRCrecords(Vol.II),pp.307308.

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


8Rollo(G.R.No.154113),pp.252259.

9Id.at250251NLRCrecords(Vol.II),pp.309310.


11Id.at360369.

12Rollo(G.R.No.187778),pp.265297NLRCrecords(Vol.I),pp.407439.

13RogelioDabatos,CeciliaSabas,Pepito Llagas,EdnaAlbo, Johanne delMar,ElsaBucao,ElenaAlia,Elizabeth Ramon, Elma Entece, Aileen Catacutan, Ruth Banzon, DioscoroGabunada, Avelina Bangalao,LuzCabase,GernaPatigdas,ShirleyRoseReyes,AmeliaAragon,NemaBelocura,MerlynNodado,NoelHortelano, Virgilie Borinaga, Josefina Reyes, Hermelo dela Torre, Raymundo Delatado, Norberta Caca,RomuloAlforque,EraCanen,SolomondelosReyes,DanielaYosores,DailindaHinampas,RoyMalazarte,RonaldTumulak,DaniloZamora,JoseGonzaga,FelecianitaMalazarte,VirgencitaCasas,RomeoEmpuerto,Daylinda Tigo, Agustin Alfornon,RicoGascon, TeofiloHenampas, Beatriz Arbasto, EdenGladysAlbaria,Milagros Castillo, Emilio Lao, Crisanta Genegaboas, Silverio Lao, Dario Labrador, Procomeo Salupan,Pedro Cabatingan, Edilberto Villa, Samuel Saliente, Jr., Leoncio Vallinas, Lannie Fernandez, RobertaJayma,BernadetteTibay,CornelioMaribojo,LucineilGabayeron,OscardelosSantos,RolandoRedilosa,Rodney Rex Lerias, Bernardito Lawas, Gloria Arquilles, Lilian Doris Pitallar, Evelyn Apostol, GlendaBantilan, Roldan Calderon, Ildefonso Cirta, Josefina Ibuna,Marlyn Labra,Ma. Carmencita Lao, BernabeLumapguid,ErnieManligas, LourdesOlarte,RubyClimaco,ConstancioPagador,MelodiaPaulin,RamonTagnipis,ErmaYballe,EleuteriaCortez,NeliaAngel,EvelynOng,MarvelousPanal,NolanAlvinPanal.

14NLRCrecords(Vol.II),pp.617647.PennedbyCommissionerBernabeS.BatuhanandconcurredinbyPresidingCommissionerIreneaE.CenizaandCommissionerEdgardoM.Enerlan.

15Id.at647.

16Id.at690691.

17CArollo,pp.239.

18Id.at332.

19Id.at347357.

20Id.at377378.

21 Rollo (G.R. No. 196156), pp. 332361. Penned by Commissioner Oscar S. Uy with CommissionerEdgardoM.Enerlanconcurring.

22Id.at361.

23Id.at363365.

24CArollo,pp.491512.PennedbyAssociateJusticeFranciscoP.AcostawithAssociateJusticesAmyC.LazaroJavierandRodilv.Zalamedaconcurring.

25Id.at511.

26G.R.No.144899,February5,2004,422SCRA122.

27CArollo,pp.398408.

28Id.at762774.PennedbyAssociateJusticeFranciscoP.AcostawithAssociateJusticesAmyC.LazaroJavierandRodilV.Zalameda.

29Id.at774.

30 Rollo (G.R. No. 196156), pp. 6476. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. BaltazarPadilla withAssociateJusticesFranchitoNDiamanteandEdgardoL.DelosSantosconcurring.

31Id.at75.

32Id.at6263.

33Rollo(G.R.No.187778),pp.4546.

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


34Rollo(G.R.No.187861),p.37.

35G.R.No.180986,December10,2008,573SCRA583,596597.

36Vide:Espinav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.164582,March28,2007,519SCRA327,344345.

37Supranote7.

38Art.255.Exclusivebargainingrepresentationandworkersparticipationinpolicyanddecisionmaking.Thelabororganizationdesignatedorselectedbythemajorityoftheemployeesinanappropriatecollectivebargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit for the purpose ofcollectivebargaining.xxx

See Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. (Manila Diamond Hotel) v. Manila Diamond HotelEmployeesUnion,G.R.No.158075,June30,2006,494SCRA195,207208.

39SeeTheLaborCodeWithCommentsandCasesbyC.A.AZUCENA,JR.,Vol.II,6thEd.,p.191.

40Art.241.Rightsandconditionsofmembershipinalabororganization.Thefollowingaretherightsandconditionsofmembershipinalabororganization:

xxxx

(d)Themembersshalldeterminebysecretballot,afterduedeliberation,anyquestionofmajorpolicyaffecting the entiremembership of the organization, unless the nature of the organization or forcemajeure renders such secret ballot impractical, in which case the board of directors of theorganizationmaymakethedecisioninbehalfofthegeneralmembership.

41SeeVillarv.Inciong,Nos.L5028384,April20,1983,121SCRA444,460461.

42Id.at457458.

43An intrauniondispute refers toanyconflictbetweenandamongunionmembers, includinggrievancesarisingfromanyviolationoftherightsandconditionsofmembership,violationofordisagreementoveranyprovisionof theunionsconstitutionandbylaws,ordisputesarising fromcharteringordisaffiliationof theunion.Sections1and2,RuleXIofDepartmentOrderNo.4003,Seriesof2003oftheDOLEenumeratethefollowingcircumstancesasinter/intrauniondisputes,viz:

RULEXIINTER/INTRAUNIONDISPUTESAND

OTHERRELATEDLABORRELATIONSDISPUTES

Section1.Coverage.Inter/intrauniondisputesshallinclude:

xxxx

(e)validity/invalidityofunionaffiliationordisaffiliation

xxxx (Emphasissupplied.) (EmployeesUnionofBayerPhils.v.BayerPhilippines, Inc.,G.R.No.162943,December6,2010,636SCRA473,487.)

44CirtekEmployeesLaborUnionFederationofFreeWorkersv.CirtekElectronics,Inc.,G.R.No.190515,June6,2011,p.7.

45 See Philippine Diamond Hotel and Resort, Inc. (Manila Diamond Hotel) v. Manila Diamond HotelEmployeesUnion,supranote38at208.

46Id.at209.

47 Magdala Multipurpose & Livelihood Cooperative v. Kilusang Manggagawa ng LGS, et al., G.R. Nos.19113839,October19,2011,p.6.

48 Art. 264 (e) of the Labor Code provides: "No person engaged in picketing shall commit any act ofviolence,coercionorintimidationorobstructthefreeingresstooregressfromtheemployerspremisesforlawfulpurposes,orobstructpublicthoroughfares."


50Id.at356368.

51Id.at122135,151158.

2/8/2016 G.R.Nos.154113/187778/187861/196156


52SukhothaiCuisineandRestaurantv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.150437,July17,2006,495SCRA336,355,citingSamahangManggagawasaSulpicioLines, Inc.NAFLUv.SulpicioLines, Inc.,G.R.No.140992,March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 319, 327328 Telefunken Seminconductors Employees UnionFFW v.SecretaryofLaborandEmployment,347Phil.447,454455(1997)andGoldCityIntegratedPortService,Inc.v.NLRC,315Phil.698,709710(1995).

53Supranote26.

54TalaRealtyServicesCorporationv.Court ofAppeals,G.R.Nos.130088,131469,155171,155201&166608,April7,2009,584SCRA63,79.

55GrandPlacementandGeneralServicesCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.142358,January31,2006,481SCRA189,203204,citingVillenav.Chavez,G.R.No.148126,November10,2003,415SCRA33,4243AyalaCorporationv.RosaDianaRealtyandDevelopmentCorp.,G.R.No.134284,December1,2000,346SCRA663,671TungChinHuiv.Rodriguez,395Phil.169,177(2000)andNegrosNavigationCo.,Inc.v.CA,346Phil.551,563(1997).

56PhilippineGuardiansBrotherhood, Inc. (PGBI)v.CommissiononElections,G.R.No.190529,April29,2010,619SCRA585,595.

57LimketkaiSonsMilling, Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.118509,September5,1996,261SCRA464,467.

58Alonsov.CebuCountryClub,Inc.,G.R.No.130876,January31,2002,375SCRA390,409.

59G.R.No.160303,September13,2007,533SCRA288.

60 Id. at 301302. See also National Union of Workers in the Hotel Restaurant and Allied Industries(NUWHRAINAPLIUF) Dusit Hotel Nikko Chapter v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 163942 & 166295,November11,2008,570SCRA598,617618andSolidbankCorporationv.Gamier,G.R.Nos.159460&159461,November15,2010,634SCRA554,581582.

61Escariov.NationalLaborRelationsCommission(ThirdDivision),G.R.No.160302,September27,2010,631SCRA261,275.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

10. eden gladys et al vs. nlrc

Documents