Scribd
Upload
138 views1 page

Visayas Community Medical Center vs. Yballe, G.R. No. 196156, (2014)

This case involved staff nurses and midwives who were terminated from their positions at Visayas Community Medical Center for participating in an illegal strike conducted by their union, NAMA-MCCH-NFL. The Supreme Court ruled that while the union leaders who organized the illegal strike were validly terminated, the termination of the staff nurses and midwives who were merely participating was illegal under Article 264 of the Labor Code, as there was no evidence they committed any illegal acts during the strike. The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals reinstating the staff nurses and midwives to their positions.

Uploaded by

Rain Hofileña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
138 views1 page

Visayas Community Medical Center vs. Yballe, G.R. No. 196156, (2014)

This case involved staff nurses and midwives who were terminated from their positions at Visayas Community Medical Center for participating in an illegal strike conducted by their union, NAMA-MCCH-NFL. The Supreme Court ruled that while the union leaders who organized the illegal strike were validly terminated, the termination of the staff nurses and midwives who were merely participating was illegal under Article 264 of the Labor Code, as there was no evidence they committed any illegal acts during the strike. The Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals reinstating the staff nurses and midwives to their positions.

Uploaded by

Rain Hofileña
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Visayas Community Medical Center vs. Yballe, G.R. No.

196156, (2014)

Facts:
- Respondents were hired as staff nurses (Ong and Angel) and midwives (Yballe
and Cortez) by petitioner VCMC formerly owned by MCCHI who is a non-stock,
non profit corporation which operates the MCCH, a tertiary medical institution
owned by the UCCP.
- The NFL is the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank and file
employees of MCCHI. NAMA-MCCH-NFL is a local affiliate whose union leaders
proceeded to strike despite it not being a legitimate labor organization.
- On February 26, 1996, MCCHI granted a one-day union leave with pay for 12
union members. The next day, several union members led by Nava launched a
series of mass actions marching around the hospital premises.
- In their explanation, Nava and her group denied there was a temporary stoppage
of work.
- MCCHI sent individual notices to all union members asking them to submit an
explanation why they should not be terminated for having supported an illegal
concerted activity of NAMA-MCCH-NFL which as no legal personality.
- Unfazed, the striking union members held more mass actions.
- Several complaints for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice were filed by the
terminated employees against MCCHI.
- Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the claim of ULP and illegal dismissal.
- Upon appeal with the NLRC, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the Executive
Labor Arbiter. CA dismissed the petition.

Issue: WON the dismissal was valid

Held:
Art 264 of the Labor Code provides “any union officer who knowingly
participates in an illegal strike and any worker or union officer who knowingly
participates in the commission of illegal acts may be declared to have lost his
employment status. Since there was no showing that the complainants committed
any illegal act during the strike, they may not be deemed to have lost their
employment status by mere participation with the illegal strike. On the other hand,
the union leaders who conducted the illegal strike were declared to have been
validly terminated.

While there was indeed no evidence of any illegal act committed by


respondents during the strike, the Labor Arbiter and NLRC were one in finding that
respondents actively supported the concerted protest activities, signed the
collective reply of union members and failed to heed petitioner’s final directive for
them to desist from doing the illegal strike.

In fine, we sustain the CA in ruling that respondents who are mere union
members were illegally dismissed for participating in the illegal strike conducted by
the Nava Group.

You might also like