|
ARELLANO UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES AND
WORKERS UNION, CARLOS C. A. RIVAS, JR., SIMEON B. INOCENCIO, ROMULO D. JACOB,
NYMIA M. PINEDA, BENEDICTO I. NIETO, JR., LUIS JACINTO, MILBERT MORA, MONICO
CALMA, CONSTANCIO BAYHONAN, BERNARDO SABLE, NESTOR BRINOSA, NANJI MACARAMPAT,
EDUARDO FLORAGUE and DIONY S. LUMANTA, Petitioners, -versus- COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, and ARELLANO UNIVERSITY, INC., Respondents. |
G.R. No. 139940 Present: QUISUMBING, Chairperson, CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, TINGA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: |
|
|
|
|
|
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Subject of the present petition for
certiorari are the Court of Appeals Resolution of April 13, 1999[1]
and Resolution of September 3, 1999[2]
which dismissed petitioners’ petition for certiorari for having been filed six
days beyond the reglementary period under Section 4,
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by Supreme Court En Banc Resolution dated July 21, 1998
reading:
If the petitioner had filed a motion for new trial or
reconsideration in due time after notice of said judgment, order or resolution,
the period herein fixed shall be interrupted. If the motion is denied, the
aggrieved party may file the petition within the remaining period, but which
shall not be less than five (5) days in any event, reckoned from notice of
such denial. No extension of time to file the petition shall be granted
except for the most compelling reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15)
days. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Petitioners,
in the main, plead for the application of substantial justice over procedural
lapses, conformably to this Court’s pronouncements in several cases, and a liberal
construction of the Rules in order to promote its objective of securing a just
disposition of every action or proceeding.[3]
The
record shows that the September 3, 1999 Resolution of the Court of Appeals
denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was received by them on
Indeed,
Section 4 of Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure was amended by the July 21, 1998 Resolution of this Court En
Banc by adding to it as second paragraph the above-quoted amendment.
The
same Section was, however, subsequently amended by this Court’s En Banc Resolution in A.M. No.
00-2-03-SC which took effect on
SEC. 4. When and where petition filed.
– The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the
judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new
trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty
(60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The
rule is settled that remedial statutes or modes of procedure, which do not
create new rights or take away vested rights but only operate in furtherance of
the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within the
purview of the general rule against the retroactive operation of statutes. They are construed to be applicable to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed
retroactive in that sense and to that extent.
Hence, in a long line of cases,[7]
the new period under Section 4 of Rule 65 was given retroactive
application. Of course at the time the
assailed Resolutions of the appellate court were issued in 1999, Section 4 of Rule
65 had not yet been amended by this Court’s Resolution in A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC.
There
being no reason why Section 4 of Rule 65, as amended in 2000 by this Court, may
not be given retroactive application to petitioners’ petition, it now gives
said application. While, normally, a
remand of the case to the appellate court for further proceedings is done,[8]
this Court now opts to decide the petition on the merits to forestall further
delay in its disposition.
On December 12, 1997, the Arellano
University Employees and Workers Union (the Union), the exclusive bargaining
representative of about 380 rank-and-file employees of Arellano University,
Inc. (the University), filed with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) a Notice of Strike charging the University with Unfair Labor Practice (ULP)
as follows:
1. Interfering in union
activities;
2. Union Busting – violation of
CBA’s Article IV, Section 2;[9]
3. Union Busting – disregarding
the union’s request to deduct penalties from its members who were absent and
without justifiable reasons during union meetings; and
4. Contracting Workout – the
management is contracting out services and functions being performed by Union
members.[10]
The Notice of Strike was docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS-12-520-97.
Subsequently or on
On P481,117.28 which were remitted per the check-off statement.[12]
Also on
On July 28, 1998, the University moved
for the consolidation with the ULP charge (NCMB-NCR-NS-12-520-97) the Interpleader[14]
it filed against the Union and some of its members, docketed as NLRC NCR
Case No. 00-02-02036-98 and pending before Labor Arbiter Felipe T. Garduque II, and the Complaint the Union filed for
underpayment of wages arising from the change in the manner of computation of salary
of employees and non-payment of Sunday pay, docketed as NLRC NCR Case No.
00-02-01422-98 and pending before Labor Arbiter Ramon Valentin
T. Reyes, both of which involve the same
parties.[15]
Before the NLRC could act on the
University’s motion for consolidation, DOLE Secretary Bienvenido
E. Laguesma, by Order[16]
of August 5, 1998, certified for compulsory arbitration to the NLRC a second Notice
of Strike filed by the Union on July 16, 1998, docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS-07-277-98,
charging the University with the following:
a. Violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), Art. V – withholding of union and death benefits;
b. Violation of CBA, Art. VI – non-granting of ten (10%) percent
salary increase to some union members;
c. Illegal/unauthorized deductions in the payroll;
d. Union interference – circulating letters against the union; and
e. Non-implementation of the retirement plan as approved by the BIR.[17]
A strike
was in fact staged on
By the same Order of
The strike staged by the Union on
August 5-7, 1998 prompted the University to file on August 24, 1998 a petition
to declare the same illegal, docketed as NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-08-06897-98,
which was also consolidated with the other cases.
Resolving the consolidated cases, the
NLRC, by Decision[19]
of
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered declaring:
1. That the Union’s two
notices of strike docketed as NCMB-NCR-NS-12-520-97 and
NCMB-NCR-NS-07-277-98 were, to the extent as they concern the issues herein
resolved, without merit;
2. That as a consequence, the University
is absolved from the charges of Unfair Labor Practice contained in said
notices of strike;
3. The loss of employment
status of all the individual respondents in NLRC-NCR-Case No.
00-08-06897-98; and
4. That there is no
diminution of workers’ benefits in NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-02-01422-98,
because apart from the Union’s failure to prove it, the University, based on
existing laws, is correct in using 314 days as divisor in computing the daily
wage of its daily paid employees.
SO ORDERED.[20] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The NLRC found that what triggered the
strike was the
On the allegation of union busting,
the NLRC ruled that the refusal of the University to deduct penalties from the
salaries of members of the Union who failed to attend meetings was based on
Article IV, Section 2[22]
of the CBA vis-á-vis Section 1[23]
of the same Article which requires as condition for a valid checkoff
prior submission to the management of individual checkoff
authorizations, a requirement which was not met by the Union.[24]
Besides, the NLRC held, the law mandates
that the
On the claim that the University had
been contracting out work, the NLRC held that the same was never raised during
the conciliation meetings at the NCMB level.[26]
Respecting the second Notice of Strike,
the NLRC found that only the charges of violation of the CBA for withholding
union dues and death benefits, and the non-implementation of the retirement
plan, as approved by the BIR, were left for resolution as the Union dropped the
other issues raised therein after the NCMB hearings on July 21, 1998 and July
28, 1998.[27]
Crediting the explanation of the
University that its withholding of union dues and death aid benefits was upon
the written request of several union members themselves, the NLRC held that no
ULP was committed.
On the charge of non-implementation of
the retirement plan by the University, the NLRC found that the same was baseless
and it was in fact not ventilated before the NCMB.[28]
In NLRC NCR Case No. 00-02-02036-98,
the NLRC ruled that the University may not be held guilty of ULP for refusal to
heed the demand of the Union that salaries of its members be deducted for their
failure to attend union meetings: firstly, because the Union itself failed to
meet the requirements provided for in Sections 1 and 2, Article IV of the CBA;
and secondly, an interpleader had been filed by the University
for the parties to litigate their claims before the NLRC.[29]
The NLRC also ruled that the resolution calling for such deduction was not
valid as it was not even signed by the majority of Union officers and
circulated to the members.[30]
In NLRC NCR Case No. 00-08-06897-98 (the
University’s petition to declare the strike staged by the Union on August 5-7,
1998 illegal), the NLRC granted the petition and declared the loss of
employment status of all the strikers for knowingly defying
the Return-to-Work Order of the DOLE Secretary dated August 5, 1998, said Order
having been served upon the union on August 6, 1998 but it was only on August
7, 1998, at about 3:00 p.m., that the strike was lifted.[31]
In NLRC NCR Case No. 00-02-01422-98,
the NLRC ruled that the University was correct in using 314 days as divisor, instead
of 365 days, in computing the “equivalent daily rate”[32]
of pay of a worker.
The Union et al. (hereafter
petitioners) filed a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision which was
denied by Resolution[33]
of
In
the present petition, petitioners insist that the University violated the CBA by
withholding union dues and death benefits. The University counters that on the request of
Union members in light of their gripes against the
The then prevailing Rules Implementing the
Labor Code, Book V[34],
Rule XVIII provided that
Section 1. Right of union to collect dues.
– The right of the incumbent bargaining representative to check off and to
collect dues resulting therefrom shall not be affected by the pendency of a representation case or an intra-union
dispute.[35]
(Emphasis supplied)
To constitute ULP, however, violations
of the CBA must be gross. Gross violation of the CBA, under Article 261 of the
Labor Code, means flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the economic
provisions thereof. Evidently, the
University can not be faulted for ULP as it in good faith merely heeded the above-said
request of Union members.
On the NLRC’s
declaration of loss of employment status of the strikers, the pertinent
provision of Article 264 of the Labor Code provides:
Article 264.
x x x
x
… 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 during a strike may be
declared to have lost his employment status…
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Under the immediately quoted
provision, an ordinary striking worker may not be declared to have lost his
employment status by mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he knowingly
participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. While the University adduced photographs[36]
showing strikers picketing outside the university premises, it failed to
identify who they were. It thus failed to
meet the “substantiality of evidence test”[37]
applicable in dismissal cases.
Petitioner-union members must
thus be reinstated to their former position, without backwages.
If reinstatement is no longer possible,
they should receive separation pay of One (1) Month for every year of service
in accordance with existing jurisprudence.[38]
With respect to the union officers,
as already discussed, their mere participation in the illegal strike warrants
their dismissal.
As for petitioners’ claim of substantial
diminution of their salary on account of the divisor used by the University in
its computation – 314 days, instead of 365 days, this Court finds nothing wrong
therewith. Sundays being un-worked and
considered unpaid rest days, while regular holidays as well as special holidays
considered as paid days,[39]
the factor used by the University merely
complies with the basic rule in this jurisdiction of “no work, no pay.” The right to be paid for un-worked days is
generally limited to the ten legal holidays in a year.[40]
WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Resolution of
The
NLRC Decision of
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairman
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 205-207. Penned by Justice Marina L. Buzon with the concurrence of Justices Jesus M. Elbinias and Eugenio S. Labitoria.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Vide Borja
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95667,
[7] Ramatek Philippines, Inc. v. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 139526, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 129, 139-141; Pobre v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141805, July 8, 2005, 463 SCRA 50, 62-63; PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Go Ko, G.R. No. 148641, March 31, 2005, 454 SCRA 586, 590-592; Santiago v. Bergensen D.Y. Philippines, G.R. No. 148333, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 486, 489-491; Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran v. FOP Corporation, G.R. No. 145043, February 13, 2004, 422 SCRA 597, 601-602; San Luis v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142649, September 13, 2001, 365 SCRA 279, 284-285; Serrano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139420, August 15, 2001, 363 SCRA 223, 228-229; Pfizer, Inc. v. Galan, G.R. No. 143389, May 25, 2001, 358 SCRA 240, 245-246; Unity Fishing Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 145415, February 2, 2001, 351 SCRA 140, 142-143.
[8] Vide Pobre v. Court of Appeals, supra; PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. v. Go Ko, supra;
[9] ARTICLE IV. UNION DUES AND CHECK OFFS
x x x x
Section 2. Upon submission and delivery to the
Management of the individual check off of the Union dues and assessments, the
management will transmit monthly the amount collected to the treasurer of the
[10] NLRC records, Vol. 7, Annex “D,” p. 111; rollo, p. 54.
[11] NLRC records, Vol. 7, Annex “A,” p. 88.
[12] Vide Order of Regional Director of DOLE-NCR Maximo Lim, NLRC records, Vol. 7, Annex “B,” pp. 107-108.
[13] Rollo, p. 55.
[14] NLRC records, Vol. 7, Annex “OO,” p. 224.
[15] Rollo, p. 55.
[16] NLRC records, Vol. 7, Annex “FFF,” p. 304.
[17] Rollo, p. 55.
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Supra Note 9.
[23] ARTICLE IV. UNION DUES AND CHECK OFFS
Section 1. The Management agrees to check off or make payroll deductions of the Union dues and other agreement or assessments, once a month, provided the Union submits to the Management individual check off authorization. (NLRC records, Vol. 7, p. 113).
[24] Rollo, p. 60.
[25]
[26] Ibid.
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] As amended by the Rules and Regulations
Implementing RA 6715, and further amended by
Department Order No. 09, Series of 1997, which took effect on
[35] Presently, the Implementing Rules of Book V, Section 1, Rule XIII (Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003) provides:
Section 1. Right of union to collect dues and agency fees. – The
incumbent bargaining agent shall continue to be entitled to check-off and collect dues and
agency fees despite the pendency of a representation
case, other inter/intra-union disputes or related labor relations disputes.
[36] NLRC records, Vol 7, Annex “NNN-1” to Annex “NNN-10,” pp. 317-320.
[37] Association of Independent Unions in the
[38] Vide Philippine Diamond
Hotel and Resort, Inc. v. Manila Diamond Hotel Employees
[39] Rollo, p. 72.
[40] Odango v. National Labor Relations Commission, G. R. No. 147420, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 633, 641.