Feu-nrmf v. Feu-nrmfea-afw
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiation between Far Eastern University - Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation (FEU-NRMF) and the FEU-NRMF Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers (FEU-NRMFEA-AFW). The union proposed terms for a new CBA upon the expiry of the existing one, but FEU-NRMF rejected most demands, citing financial constraints. Despite conciliation efforts, negotiations failed, leading the union to file a notice of strike on the grounds of bargaining deadlock. The union subsequently conducted a strike vote and, after observing the cooling-off and strike ban periods, commenced a strike on September 6, 1996. The union offered to maintain a skeletal workforce, but FEU-NRMF refused to accept this offer. 2. Procedural History: In response to the impending strike, FEU-NRMF filed a petition for assumption of jurisdiction with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Secretary of Labor granted this petition on September 5, 1996, issuing an order to assume jurisdiction and prohibit any strike or lockout. Despite this order, the union continued the strike until September 12, 1996, claiming they did not receive a copy of the order. A return-to-work agreement was subsequently executed. FEU-NRMF then filed a case with the NLRC, seeking to declare the strike illegal and dismiss the striking employees due to defiance of the assumption of jurisdiction order and alleged illegal acts during the strike. The Labor Arbiter declared the strike illegal and dismissed the union officers. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The union appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC's decision, finding that the assumption of jurisdiction order was not validly served. FEU-NRMF's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the current petition before the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: Petitioners FEU-NRMF and Dr. Lilia P. Luna are seeking review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision that reversed the NLRC's findings. The core issue presented to the Supreme Court is the validity of the service of the Secretary of Labor's Assumption of Jurisdiction Order. Petitioners argue that the Court of Appeals erred in finding the service invalid, which consequently led to the appellate court's erroneous reversal of the Labor Arbiter and NLRC decisions declaring the strike illegal and ordering the dismissal of union officers. The petition contends that the Court of Appeals should have upheld the findings of the lower labor tribunals regarding the validity of the strike and the consequences of its illegality.
Issue(s)
Whether or not service of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was validly effected. Whether or not the strike conducted by the respondent union was illegal. Whether or not the dismissal of the union officers was valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, holding that the service of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was invalid. Consequently, the strike was deemed valid, and the dismissal of the union officers was unwarranted.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether or not service of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was validly effected. The Court held that the service of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was not validly effected. The process server's certification indicated that copies of the Order were merely posted in conspicuous places within the hospital premises because no union officials were available to receive personal service. This mode of service, posting, is not sanctioned by the NLRC Revised Rules of Procedure or the Revised Rules of Court. The NLRC Rules require service to be made personally or by registered mail. While special circumstances may allow service in accordance with the Rules of Court, the Rules of Court itself prescribes personal service by delivering a copy to the party or counsel, or by leaving it in their office or residence with a person of sufficient age and discretion. Substituted service, which involves leaving a copy at the residence, requires strict compliance with statutory restrictions. The Court emphasized that personal service is crucial for due process, and if personal service is impossible, substituted service must be strictly followed. Posting does not satisfy the rigid requirements for proper service, and therefore, the respondent union could not be deemed to have been properly apprised of the Order. Consequently, the presumption of receipt of the Order could not be inferred, and the service was invalid. On Issue 2: Whether or not the strike conducted by the respondent union was illegal. As the service of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was found to be invalid, the Court ruled that the strike conducted by the respondent union was valid. The Court reiterated the requisites for a valid strike: a thirty-day notice (or fifteen-day notice in case of unfair labor practices), a two-thirds vote by secret ballot, and submission of the strike vote to the Department of Labor and Employment at least seven days prior to the strike. It was noted that these procedural requirements, including the cooling-off and strike ban periods, were fully observed by the respondent union. Furthermore, the Court found no sufficient evidence to declare the strike illegal based on the means employed. The affidavits presented by FEU-NRMF alleging illegal acts during the strike were given no probative value because the adverse party was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, rendering them hearsay. Photographs supporting these allegations were also not verified. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of illegal acts, the strike was upheld as a valid exercise of the workers' constitutional right to self-organization and collective bargaining. On Issue 3: Whether or not the dismissal of the union officers was valid. Since the strike was declared valid and legal, the Court found no cogent reason to dismiss the union officers. The dismissal of union officers is typically a consequence of conducting an illegal strike, particularly in defiance of a valid Assumption of Jurisdiction Order or a return-to-work order. As the Court determined that the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was not validly served, the union officers could not be held liable for defying it. The Court reiterated that employment is a property right that cannot be deprived of without due process, which requires proper notification of any order that could lead to the loss of employment. Because the respondent union and its officers were not properly notified of the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order, their subsequent actions, including continuing the strike, did not constitute defiance that would warrant dismissal. Therefore, the dismissal of the union officers was deemed invalid.
Main Doctrine
Service of an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order must be made personally or through substituted service in accordance with the Rules of Court to be valid. Mere posting of the order in conspicuous places within the premises of the hospital is insufficient and renders the subsequent strike, even if otherwise procedurally compliant, valid.