Far Eastern University - Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation v. FEU-NRMF Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The dispute originated from a bargaining deadlock between Far Eastern University - Dr. Nicanor Reyes Medical Foundation (FEU-NRMF) and the FEU-NRMF Employees Association-Alliance of Filipino Workers (FEU-NRMFEA-AFW). Following the expiration of their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) in April 1996, the union proposed terms for a new CBA, which FEU-NRMF rejected due to alleged financial constraints, offering only to maintain existing provisions except for salary increases. Despite conciliation efforts, negotiations failed, leading the union to file a notice of strike on grounds of bargaining deadlock. 2. Procedural History: The union proceeded to stage a strike on September 6, 1996, after observing the required cooling-off period and strike ban. Prior to this, FEU-NRMF had filed a petition for assumption of jurisdiction with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which the Secretary of Labor granted on September 5, 1996, enjoining any strike. The union claimed they did not receive this order, and the strike continued until September 12, 1996. Subsequently, a return-to-work agreement was executed. FEU-NRMF then filed a complaint with the NLRC, seeking a declaration of illegality for the strike and the dismissal of union officers. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of FEU-NRMF, declaring the strike illegal and dismissing union officers. The NLRC affirmed this decision. The union then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC's findings, deeming the strike legal due to invalid service of the assumption of jurisdiction order. 3. The Petition: FEU-NRMF, as petitioners, filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision. They argue that the appellate court erred in reversing the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. The core of the petition revolves around the validity of the service of the Secretary of Labor's Assumption of Jurisdiction Order. Petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals incorrectly found the service to be invalid, which led to the erroneous conclusion that the strike was legal and the dismissal of union officers unwarranted. The petition seeks to reinstate the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, which declared the strike illegal and upheld the dismissal of the union officers.
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, holding that the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was not validly served upon the respondent union. Consequently, the strike was deemed valid, and the dismissal of the union officers was unwarranted. The Court ruled that the posting of the Order was an invalid mode of service and did not constitute notice to the union members.
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 certification of service indicated that the process server attempted personal service but, finding no one available, resorted to posting copies of the Order in conspicuous places within the hospital premises. This mode of service 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, with provisions for substituted service in special circumstances in accordance with the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court, in turn, prescribe specific methods for substituted service, such as leaving the copy at the party's residence with a person of sufficient age and discretion, which were not followed. Mere posting does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of due process, as it does not ensure actual receipt or knowledge of the Order by the intended parties. Therefore, the service was invalid and irregular. On Issue 2: Whether or not the strike conducted by the respondent union was illegal. As the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order was not validly served, the respondent union could not be deemed to have defied it. The Court found that the union had complied with the procedural requirements for staging a strike, including the thirty-day notice, the two-thirds vote by secret ballot, and the submission of the strike vote to the Department of Labor and Employment. Furthermore, the union offered to provide a skeletal workforce, as required for strikes in hospitals. The Court also noted that the affidavits presented by FEU-NRMF alleging illegal acts during the strike lacked probative value because the adverse party was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, rendering them hearsay. Without clear and convincing evidence of illegal acts or defiance of a valid order, the strike was considered 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 deemed valid and the union officers did not defy a valid Assumption of Jurisdiction Order, their dismissal was not valid. The Court emphasized that employment is a property right protected by due process. Deprivation of employment requires clear proof of a valid ground, such as defiance of a properly served Assumption of Jurisdiction Order or commission of illegal acts during a strike. In this case, the invalidity of the service of the Order meant that the union officers could not be held liable for defiance. The lack of valid evidence for illegal acts during the strike further negated any basis for their dismissal. Therefore, the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC upholding the dismissal was reversed.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterated that service of an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order must be made personally or, in special circumstances, through substituted service in accordance with the Rules of Court. Mere posting of the Order in conspicuous places within the premises of the hospital, without strict compliance with the rules for personal or substituted service, is invalid and does not bind the union or its members. Consequently, a strike cannot be declared illegal, nor can union officers be dismissed, for defying an order of which they were not properly notified.