SAN JUAN DE DIOS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION EMPLOYEES UNION-ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS; MA.

CONSUELO MAQUILING, LEONARDO MARTINEZ, ANDRES AYALA, VIRGINIA ARLANTE, ROGELIO BELMONTE, MA. ELENA GARCIA an RODOLFO CALUCIN, JR., !"#$#$%n"&', ('. SAN JUAN DE DIOS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION, INC. )*OSPITAL+ an NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, &"'!%n "n#' Fa,#'Rodolfo Calucin, Jr., then Executive Secretary of the Union, had been employed at the Foundation as a medical clerk for almost ! years. "n a #etter dated January $, %%$, the Foundation informed him that he had incurred & sets of tardiness for %%', in addition to the t(o other sets he had incurred in the year %%!, and that such tardiness had affected his efficiency. "n his reply, he claimed that he had already served the maximum suspension of one (eek for his past tardiness. )oreover, his superior had *iven him a performance ratin* of F+"R, as of ,ctober %%'. -o(ever, the Foundation terminated his services for *ross and habitual ne*lect of duties under +rt. !.! /b0 of the #abor Code. Calucin, Jr. filed a Complaint for "lle*al 1ismissal and n the same date, the Union filed a 2otice of Strike, citin* as basis3 /a0 ille*al dismissal of Rodolfo Calucin, Jr., executive secretary of the Union4 /b0 discriminations arisin* from the favorable actions of the Foundation to Editha -. Unlao (ho (as not dismissed despite incurrin* similar number of absences as Calucin4 /c0 Union bustin* arisin* from contractin* out re*ular services performed by union member4 forced resi*nation from the union by some members upon the insistence of the sisters (ho recruited them to (ork at the Foundation4 harsh enforcement of the company code of discipline motivated by the desire to persecute militant union members4 suspendin* employees (ho became pre*nant before marria*e for & to 5 months even after *ettin* married or until delivery4 /d0 violation of the C6+ arisin* from the non7observance of friendly ne*otiations before enforcin* mana*ement actions, refusal to activate *rievance committee, refusal or failure to continue recreational activities.

8hereafter, the then 1,#E Secretary issued an ,rder certifyin* the case to the 2#RC, directin* the strikin* employees to *o to (ork, and directin* the Foundation to accept all employees under the same terms and conditions prevailin* before the strike. 9er the return of Sheriff +lfredo C. +ntonio, copies of the order (ere served on the officers and strikin* members of the Union and its counsel. 2evertheless, the officers and strikin* members of the Union defied the order of the 1,#E and continued (ith their strike. 8he Foundation and the Union entered into an a*reement on the follo(in* matters3 /a0 the propriety and le*ality of the dismissal of Calucin, Jr. and the hirin* of a*ency employees shall be submitted to a voluntary arbitrator chosen by the parties in accordance (ith the C6+4 /b0 the Union shall lift its picket line immediately after the si*nin* of the a*reement and report to (ork not later than +u*ust ' , %%$, except for Calucin, Jr.4 /c0 the Foundation (ould (aive any le*al action relatin* to the ille*al strike and the ille*al acts committed by the officers and members of the Union. 8he Union informed the Foundation that the ni*ht7shift duty / :3:: p.m. to ;3:: a.m.0 (ould be reportin* back to (ork. -o(ever, she re<uested that those (hose duties fell on the ;3:: a.m. to !3:: p.m., .3:: a.m. to &3:: p.m., and the !3:: p.m. to : p.m. shifts, be re<uired to return to (ork on September , %%$, considerin* that they had been in the picket line for the past fe( days. 8he Foundation denied the Union=s re<uest. 8he !5 employees (ho (orked the said shifts (ere not allo(ed to *o back to (ork. "nstead, the Foundation allo(ed the payroll reinstatement of !5 employees. 2#RC decision3 strike is ille*al> 8he strike sta*ed by the Union (as, at its inception, le*al and peaceful. -o(ever, the strikin* employees= defiance of the R8?, of the S,#E rendered the strike ille*al. Conse<uently, under +rticle !;$ /a0 para*raph ! of the #abor Code, the officers and members of the Union (ho refused to return to (ork after the issuance of the certification@R8?, (ere deemed to have lost their employment status. "t (as also held that considerin* that the Union members did not kno( the conse<uences of their refusal to return to (ork, only the rankin* officers of the Union should be deemed to have lost their employment status.

8he 2#RC dismissed the claim of unfair labor practice arisin* from the ille*al dismissal of Ro*elio Calucin, Jr. "t ruled that Calucin, Jr.=s dismissal (as based on his continued tardiness for the year %%! to %%', (hich affected his efficiency as reflected by his performance ratin*. "t also found that the Union=s claim of discrimination amountin* to unfair labor practice (as unsubstantiated. I''."' . ?hether or not the petitioners (ere validly served (ith copies of the return to (ork order of the Secretary of the 1,#E !. ?hether or not the strike sta*ed by the Union (as ille*al4 '. ?hether the petitioner Union=s officers (ere le*ally dismissed4 $. ?hether or not the Foundation committed an unfair labor practice (hen it terminated the employment of petitioner Calucin, Jr. *"/ U2",23 ,n the first, second, and third issues, it asserts that the Foundation failed to prove that the petitioners and their counsel (ere served (ith copies of the Return7to7?ork ,rder issued by the Secretary of #abor and Employment and that, conse<uently, they could not have defied the same. -ence, they insist they (ere ille*ally dismissed by the respondent Foundation. C,UR83 ?e do not a*ree. 8he return of Sheriff +lfredo C. +ntonio irrefra*ably sho(s that copies of the ,rder (ere served on the strikin* employees and the petitioners. +s *leaned from the Sheriff=s Return, the strikin* employees of the -ospital refused to ackno(led*e receipt of the copies of the said ,rder necessitatin* the distribution of the same to the strikin* (orkers at the picket line. + copy of the ,rder (as served to Consuelo )a<uilin* but she refused to receive officially. -o(ever, . copies of the ,rder (ere distributed to the strikin* (orkers. + copy of the order (as also served on the petitioners= counsel but the latter refused to receive the same. 8he sheriff=s report is an official statement by him of his acts under the (rits and processes issued by the court in obedience to its directive and in conformity (ith la(. "n the absence of contrary evidence, a presumption exists that a sheriff has re*ularly performed his official duty. 8he bare denial by the petitioners of receivin* copies of the order (ill not suffice.

8he petitioners= bare denial is even belied by their admission in their position paper before the 2#RC that (hile the sheriff served copies of the order on them, they refused to receive the same because they thou*ht it (as a Afake order.A "n such case, it behooved the petitioners to verify its validity from the ,ffice of the Secretary of #abor and Employment. 8hey failed to do so. 8he petitioners cannot, thus, fei*n i*norance of the said order. 1espite the receipt of an order from then S,#E to return to their respective Bobs, the Union officers and members refused to do so and defied the same. Conse<uently, then, the strike sta*ed by the Union is a prohibited activity under +rticle !;$ of the #abor Code. -ence, the dismissal of its officers is in order. 8he Foundation (as, thus, Bustified in terminatin* the employment of the Union=s officers. ,n the last issue, the petitioners failed to prove their claim that the respondent Foundation committed unfair labor practices and discrimination of its employees. 8he records of this case do not sho( that Calucin=s Jr.=s dismissal is due to his trade union activities. 8he Foundation (as able to support (ith documents ho( Calucin Jr. declared himself irrelevant in the Foundation throu*h his tardiness and shallo( excuses such as fetchin* the (ater, cookin* breakfast, seein* to it that his kids took breakfast before *oin* to school, preparin* packed lunch for himself and even the diversions from the usual route of Beepneys that he rode in on these days that he (as absent are all lame excuses that amount to lack of interest in his (ork. -is lackluster (ork attitude reached his hi*hest point (hen he filed for a leave of absence of three months to Boin his brother=s business venture. Furthermore, it is not true that his attendance improved in %%' because the records sho( that in %%', his tardiness (orsened to the point that his repeated tardiness (ent beyond the maximum contemplated in the Foundation=s Code of 1iscipline. For the fore*oin* reasons, Calucin, Jr.=s dismissal is valid. 8he rest of the char*es on discrimination amountin* to unfair labor practice acts specifically those affectin* the alle*ed tardiness of Edith Unlao, the meal breaks of the dietary personnel, haCard pay for mid(ives, the salary of Carmen -errera includin* hirin* throu*h a*ency, the resi*nation of Cachuela, Francisco Rellevo, 2estor Centeno, 2emia +bre*oso and Drace "sidro are all dismissed on the *round that the explanation of the Foundation per records of this case (ere found to be meritorious.

8he same holds true as re*ard the char*es of unfair labor practice throu*h alle*ed harsh enforcement of the Code of 1iscipline, affectin* Fe Calucin, Joan 6alucos, Ed*ar 6as, Eictor Estuya and the suspension of unmarried pre*nant (omen4 includin* the alle*ed violation of C6+ provisions such as payin* employees throu*h 69", refusal to activate *rievance committee and failure to maintain recreational activities. 8he Foundation (as able to explain and exculpate itself from the char*es of unfair labor practice and discrimination as sho(n in their (ritten replies to these char*es (hich are all in the records of this case. Conse<uently, all the char*es of unfair labor practice acts are dismissed. 8hus, in the case of Castillo vs. 2#RC, et al., the Supreme Court ruled3 A+s earlier pointed out, findin*s of the 2#RC are practically conclusive on this Court. "t is only (hen the 2#RC=s findin*s are bereft of any substantial support from the records that the Court may step in and proceed to make its o(n independent evaluation of the facts. 8he Court has found none.A "2 #"D-8 ,F +## 8-E F,RED,"2D, the petition is 1E2"E1. 8he 1ecision of the Court of +ppeals in C+7D.R. S9 2o. &'5;. is +FF"R)E1.