After 15 years SC affirms CA order: VCMC told to pay terminated employees

CEBU, Philippines – After fifteen years, the Supreme Court had finally affirmed the order of the Court of Appeals regarding the labor dispute involving the mass termination of hospital employees who participated in the strike and picketing activities at the Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC).

Associate Justice Martin Villarama Sr. affirmed with modifications the order of the Court of Appeals (CA) directing the Metro Cebu Community Hospital Inc. (MCCHI) presently known as the VCMC to pay the 84 union members except the seven union officers, their separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service and to pay P50,000 for attorney’s fees.

Villarama likewise affirmed the decision directing the VCMC to pay the private respondents Erma Yballe, Nelia Angel, Eleuteria Cortez and Evelyn Ong their separation pay equivalent to one month pay for every year of service and deleted the back wages.

He remanded the case to the Executive Labor Arbiter for the re-computation of separation pay of each of the petitioners’ union members except for those who fifteen members who executed compromise agreements approved by the court.

The case stemmed after several union members led by the President of Nagkahiusang Mamumuno sa MCCH (NAMA-MCCH-NFL) Perla Nava, and her group, launched a series of mass actions by wearing black and red armbands/headbands, marching around the hospital premises and putting up placards, posters and streamers on February 27, 1996.

Nava said the protest was to reiterate their demand for MCCHI to comply with its duty to “bargain collectively.”

She said on December 6, 1995 she wrote hospital administrator Rev. Gregorio Iyoy expressing the union’s desire to renew the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) attaching their proposals signed by 153 union members.

However, MCCHI returned the CBA proposal for Nava to secure first the endorsement of the legal counsel of the National Federation of Labor (NFL) as the official bargaining representative of MCCHI employees.

NFL legal counsel Atty. Armando Alforque informed the MCCHI that the proposed CBA submitted by Nava was never referred to them and that they did not authorize any other legal counsel or any person for collective bargaining negotiations.

Nava and six others and their union members were then suspended for serious violation of the Constitution and By-Laws.

The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)-7 issued a certification on March 13 and 19, 1996 stating that there is nothing on records that NAMA-MCCHI-NFL is a registered labor organization.

Subsequently, the MCCHI sent notices to all union members asking them to explain within three days why they should not be terminated for having supported the protest of NAMA-MCCH-NFL which has no legal personality according to the DOLE.

The union members responded that the protest made was due to the refusal of MCCHI to “bargain collectively”.

The union members had filed several complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against MCCHI, its trustees and Iyoy.

Executive Labor Arbiter Reynoso Belarmino dismissed the complaint filed by Nava and 90 other complainants after he found no sufficient evidence.

Belarmino upheld the termination of the union leaders but directed the MCCHI to pay the union members in the total amount of P3,085,897.40.

Because of the denial, the union appealed to the CA but it was denied prompting them to go to the Supreme Court who dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice.

“Not being a legitimate labor organization or certified exclusive bargaining representative of MCCHI’s rank-and-file employees, NAMA-MCCH-NFL cannot demand from MCCHI the right to bargain collectively in their behalf,” decision reads.

The SC added the refusal of MCCHI to bargain with NAMA-MCCH-NFL cannot be considered an unfair labor practice to justify the “staging of the strike.”

Meanwhile, the MCCHI filed a partial reconsideration to the decision of the NLRC but it was denied prompting them to go to the CA but it was likewise denied.

They also filed a certiorari before the SC but it was denied. — (FREEMAN)