Petitioner,
Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Chico-Nazario,
Velasco, Jr.,
Nachura, and
Peralta, JJ.
SAMAHANG
MANGGAGAWA
NG
UST (SM-UST), Promulgated:
Respondent.
September 14, 2009
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Assailed
in this petition for review on certiorari is the January 31, 2005 Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72965, which affirmed the May 31,
2002 Order of the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
directing the parties to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement incorporating
the terms in said Order with modification that the signing bonus is increased
to P18,000.00. Also assailed is the
September 23, 2005 Resolution[2]
denying the motion for reconsideration.
Respondent
Samahang Manggagawa ng U.S.T. (SM-UST) was the authorized bargaining agent of
the non-academic/non-teaching
rank-and-file daily- and monthly-paid employees (numbering about 619) of
petitioner, the Pontifical and Royal University of Santo Tomas, The Catholic
University of the Philippines (or UST), a private university in the City of
Manila run by the Order of Preachers. In
October 2001, during formal negotiations for a new collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) for the academic year 2001 through 2006, petitioner submitted
its “2001-2006 CBA Proposals” which, among others, contained the following
economic provisions:
A. ACADEMIC YEAR 2001-2002
1.
Salary increase of
P800.00 per month
2.
Signing bonus of
P10,000.00
3.
Additional Christmas
bonus of P2,000.00
B. ACADEMIC YEAR 2002-2003
1.
Salary increase of
P1,500.00 per month
2.
Additional Christmas
bonus of P2,000.00
3.
P6,000,000.00 for
salary restructuring
C. ACADEMIC YEAR 2003-2004
1.
Salary increase of P1,700.00
per month
2.
Additional Christmas
bonus of P2,000.00
In
November 2001, the parties agreed in principle on all non-economic provisions
of the proposed CBA, except those pertaining to Agency Contract or
contractualization (Art. III, Sec. 3 of the proposed CBA), Union Leave of the SM-UST
President (No. 4 of the Addendum to the proposed CBA), and hiring preference.
In
December 2001, petitioner submitted its final
offer on the economic provisions, thus:
A. ACADEMIC YEAR 2001-2002
1.
Salary increase of
P1,000.00 per month
2.
Signing bonus of
P10,000.00
3.
Additional Christmas
bonus of P2,000.00
B. ACADEMIC YEAR 2002-2003
1.
Salary increase of
P1,700.00 per month
2.
Additional Christmas
bonus of P2,000.00
3.
P6,190,000.00 to be
distributed in the form of salary restructuring
C. ACADEMIC YEAR 2003-2004
1.
Salary increase of
P2,000.00 per month
2.
Additional Christmas
bonus of P2,000.00
On
the other hand, respondent reduced its demands for the first year from P8,000.00
monthly salary increase per employee to P7,000.00, and from P75,000.00 signing
bonus to P60,000.00 for each employee, but petitioner insisted on its final
offer. As a result, respondent declared
a deadlock and filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board -National Capital Region (NCMB-NCR).
Conciliation
and mediation proved to be futile, such that in January 2002, majority of respondent’s
members voted to stage a strike. However,
the DOLE Secretary timely assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, and the
parties were summoned and heard on their respective claims, and were required
to submit their respective position papers.
On
May 31, 2002, the DOLE Secretary issued an Order,[3]
the pertinent portions of which read, as follows:
x x x In arguing on the
reasonableness of its demands, it cites the income of the school from tuition
fee increases and the allocation of this amount to the faculty and non-teaching
employees of the School x x x. According to the
x x x x
The
The Union also submits a
comparative chart of the allocation to non-academic personnel of the 70%
increase in tuition fees from school year 1996-1997 to 1999-2000 x x x. The
average percentage allocation to non-academic personnel during this period is
32.8% of the total 70% of total tuition fee increases, the lowest being 20.83%
for the school year 1999-2000 and the highest being 43.11% of the total
allocation in 1997-1998. Using P101,036,330.37 as the estimated increase in
tuition fee, 70% of this amount, net of adjustment, is P68,775,831.15 x x x. The
It maintains, however, that it
is entitled to more than the average percentage of its allocation of the total
70% because it is School practice to allocate more than 70% of the total
tuition fee increases for the salaries and benefits of School employees.
Comparing the employees’ share in the tuition fee increases from school year
1996-1997 to 1999-2000, the School allocated an average percentage of 76.75%
for the benefits and salaries of its personnel, or from a low of 72% in
1998-1999 to a high of 84.4% in 1996-1997 x x x. If the average is applied this
year, the
Aside from this amount, the
Union maintains that it is entitled to an additional P15,475,000.00, sourced
from other income, for the signing bonus or one-time grant of P25,000.00 per
member x x x. The
The School cannot claim that the
funds are insufficient to cover the expenses for the CBA because for the fiscal
year 2000-2001 alone, the accumulated excess of revenues over expenses at the
end of the year totaled P148,881,678.00 x x x. The Statement of Revenues and
Expenses from School Operations collated from the audited Financial Statements
of the School for the school years 1996-1997 up to 2000-2001 shows that except
for school years 1996-1997 and 2000-2001, the School posted a net income from
school operations. Its average annual net income from school operations alone
is P7,956,187.00 and the net loss in 2000-2001 was a result of the revaluation
of the
From the foregoing arguments,
the
1st Year – P38,067,860.00
distributed as follows: P22,592,860.53 (share from tuition fee increases) for
the economic benefits with sliding effect on the succeeding years; plus
P15,475,000.00 for the one-time signing bonus of P25,000.00 for each employee
sourced from other funds.
2nd Year – P33,568,970.00 to
apply to its demand for salary increase, Christmas bonus, rice subsidy and
clothing/uniform allowance.
3rd Year – P46,653,295.37 to
apply to its demand for salary increase, Christmas bonus, medicine allowance,
mid-year bonus allowance and meal allowance.
Based on the
x x x x
Given all the foregoing, we
cannot follow the
1st Year –
P1,000.00/month
2nd Year –
P2,000.00/month
3rd Year –
P2,200.00/month
These increases, at a three-year
total of P68,337,600, are less than the three (3)-year increases in the last
CBA cycle to accommodate the School’s proven lack of capacity to afford a
higher increase, but are still substantial enough to accommodate the workers’
needs while taking into account the symmetry that must be maintained with the
wages of the other bargaining units. On a straight line aggregate of P5,200.00,
the non-academic personnel will receive P498.48 less than an Instructor I (member
of the faculty union) who received an aggregate of P5,698.48, thus maintaining
the gap between the teaching and non-teaching personnel. The salary difference
will as well be maintained over the three (3)-year period of the CBA. An RFI
employee (member of the union’s bargaining unit) will receive a monthly salary
of P21,695.95 while an Instructor I (faculty union member) will have a salary
of P22,948.00; while an RF5-5/A (member of the union’s bargaining unit) will
receive a salary of P23,462.97 compared to an Asst. Prof. 1 (faculty) who will
receive P29,250.96. From a total cost of salary increases for the first year at
P7,428,000, these costs will escalate to P22,284,000 in the second year, and to
P38,625,000 at the third year. Given these figures, the amounts available for distribution
and the member of groups sharing these amounts, these increases are by no means
minimal.
Signing Bonus
A review of the past bargaining
history of the parties shows that the School as a matter of course grants a
signing bonus. This ranged from P8,000.00 during the first three (3) years of
the last CBA to P10,000.00 during the remaining two (2) years of the
re-negotiated term. In this instance, the School’s offer of P10,000.00 signing
bonus is already reasonable considering that the School could have taken the
position that no signing bonus is due on compulsory arbitration in line with
the ruling in Meralco v. Quisumbing et
al., G.R. No. 127598,
Christmas
Bonus
We note that the members of the
bargaining unit receive a P6,500.00 Christmas bonus. Considering this current
level, we believe that the School’s offer of P2,000.00 for each of the next
three (3) years of the CBA is already reasonable. Under this grant, the
workers’ Christmas bonus will stand at a total of P12,500 at the end of the
third year.
Hospitalization
Benefit
We believe that the current
practice is already reasonable and should be maintained.
Meal Allowance
The
Rice Allowance
We believe an additional 2 sacks
of rice on top of the existing 6 sacks of rice is reasonable and is hereby
granted, effective on the second year.
Medical
Allowance
In the absence of any clear
justification for an improvement of this benefit, we find the existing practice
to be already reasonable and should be maintained.
Uniform/Clothing
The
Mid-year Bonus
The P3,000.00 bonus is already
fair and should be maintained.
Hazard Pay
There is no basis to increase
this benefit, the current level being fair and reasonable.
Educational
Benefit
The existing provision is
already generous and should be maintained.
Retirement
Plan
We are convinced that the 100%
of basic salary per year of service is already reasonable and should be
maintained.
Hiring
Preference
Based on the Minutes of Meeting
on
Contractualization
The
Full-time
The
Other Demands
All other demands not included
in the defined deadlock issues are deemed abandoned, except for existing
benefits which the School shall continue to grant at their current levels
consistent with the principle of non-diminution of benefits.
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, the parties are hereby directed to execute within ten (10) days
from receipt of this Order a Collective Bargaining Agreement incorporating the
terms and conditions of this Order as well as other agreements made in the
course of negotiations and on conciliation.[4]
Respondent
filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the Secretary of Labor. Thus, respondent filed an original petition
for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, claiming that the awards made by the
DOLE Secretary are not supported by the evidence on record and are contrary to
law and jurisprudence.
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the petition is partially GRANTED. The assailed Order of May 31, 2002 of
Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the
P10,000.00 signing bonus awarded is increased to P18,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[5]
In
arriving at the foregoing disposition, the appellate court noted that:
Based on UST Chief Accountant
Antonio J. Dayag’s Certification, the tuition fee increment for the SY
2001-2002 amounted to P101,036,330.37. From this amount, the tuition fee
adjustment amounting to P2,785,143.00 was deducted leaving a net tuition fee
increment of P98,251,189.36.
Pursuant to Section 5 (2) RA
6728, seventy percent (70%) of P98,251,187.36 or P68,775,831.15 is the amount
UST has to allocate for salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of its
2,290 employees, categorized as follows: 619 non-teaching personnel represented
by herein petitioner SM-UST; 1,452 faculty members represented by UST-Faculty
Union (UST-FU) and 219 academic/administrative officials. The last group of employees
is excluded from the coverage of the two bargaining units.
Public respondent, taking into
consideration the bargaining history of the parties, the needs of the members
of Union in relation to the capability of its employer, UST, to grant its
demands, the impact of the award on the UST-Faculty Union members (UST-FU), and
how the present salary and benefits of the non-academic personnel compare with
the compensation of the employees of other learning institutions, arrived at
the following “fair and reasonable” resolution to the wage issue:
1st year –
P1,000.00/month
2nd year –
P2,000.00/month
3rd year –
P2,000.00/month
Based on public respondent’s
arbitral award for the first year (AY 2001-2002), We determine the allocation
that SM-UST would get from the 70% of the tuition fee increment for AY
2001-2002 by approximating UST’s expense on the increment of salaries/wages,
allowances and benefits of the non-teaching personnel:
1. Increment on Salaries/Wages P
8,047,000.00
+ 13th month pay
(P1,000 x 13 months x 619
employees)
2. Signing Bonus 6,190,000.00
(P10,000/employee)
3. P2,000 Christmas Bonus 1,238,000.00
Total
P15,475,000.00
===========
The amount of P15,475,000.00 represents 22.50% of the
allocated P68,775,831.00 (70% of the tuition fee increment for AY 2001-2002).
UST has allocated P45 million or 65.43% of the P68,775,831 to UST-Faculty
Union.
Is the distribution equitable?
If the share from the allocated P68,775,831.00 for each bargaining unit would be
based on the union’s membership, then the distribution appears fair and
reasonable:
x x x x
Academic 1,452 employees awarded
P45 million
Non-academic 619 employees awarded P15.475 million
Academic &
Administrative 219 employees awarded P8 million_____
Total
awarded P68,475,000.00
The difference between
P68,775,831 (70% of incremental tuition fee proceeds) and P68,475,000 (total
actual allocation or award to the two bargaining units and the school
officials) is P300,831.00, which is only .437% of the 70% mandatory allocation
(P68,775,831.00).
The Supreme Court in the case of
Cebu Institute of Medicine v. Cebu
Institute of Medicine Employees’ Union National Federation of Labor held
that SSS, Medicare and Pag-Ibig employer’s share may be charged against the
“seventy percent (70%) incremental tuition fee increase (sic)” as they are,
after all, for the benefit of the University’s teaching and non-teaching
personnel. The High Court further ruled that “the private educational
institution concerned has the discretion on the disposition of the seventy
percent (70%) incremental tuition fee increase (sic). It enjoys the privilege
of determining how much increase in salaries to grant and the kind and amount
of allowances and other benefits to give. The only precondition is that seventy
percent (70%) of the incremental tuition fee increase (sic) goes to the payment
of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of teaching and non-teaching
personnel.”
In the (sic) light of the
foregoing jurisprudence, the University, in order to comply with R.A. 6728,
must fully allocate the 70% of the tuition fee increases to salaries, wages,
allowances and other benefits of the teaching and non-teaching personnel. The
amount of P300,831.00 must therefore be allocated either as salary increment or
fringe benefits of the non-teaching personnel.
We noted that UST’s non-teaching
employees enjoy several fringe benefits.
We listed them down and
estimated their costs for AY 2001-2002:
1.
P3,000.00 mid-year
bonus P1,857,000.00
2.
6 sacks of
rice/employee
@ P1,000.00/sack 3,714,000.00
3.
Hospitalization
benefit 2,476,000.00
4.
Meal allowance
(P600/month/employee) 4,456,800.00
5.
Hazard pay (P200/month
for
198 entitled
employees) 8,430,780.00
6.
Medicine Allowance
(P1,000/month/employee) 7,428,000.00 20,407,000.00
7.
SSS (P910.00
employer’s
share per
employee) 6,759,480.00
8.
Pag-Ibig (2% of the
basic pay) 742,800.00
9.
Phil Health
(P125.00/employee) 928,500.00_
Total P28,837,780.00
===========
The allocation for salary
increases, 13th month pay, signing bonus and Christmas bonus for UST’s teaching
and non-teaching employees, as well as the school officials, amount to P68.475
million. This represents almost 70% of the UST incremental tuition fee proceeds
for AY 2001-2002. Considering the fringe benefits being extended to UST
employees, it is safe to assume that the funds for such benefits need to be
sourced from the University’s other revenues. We looked into UST’s financial
statements to determine its financial standing. The financial statements duly
audited by independent and credible external auditors constitute the normal
method of proof of profit and loss performance of a company. We examined UST
audited financial statements from 1997 to 2001 and found that the University’s
“other incomes” come from parking fees, rent income and interest income. It,
likewise, derives income from school operations:
1999 2000 2001
Income from
Operations P19,874,937.00 (24,222,602) (40,905,598)
Other Income 85,995,039.00 77,335,032.00 78,358,303
Excess of Revenues Over
Expenses Before
Income Tax 96,869,976.00 53,112,480.00 (29,726,651)
Provision for
Income Tax 2,122,518.00 2,602,305.00
Excess of Revenues
Over Expenses
94,747,458.00 50,510,175.00 (32,115,272)
ACCUMULATED
EXCESS OF
REVENUES OVER
EXPENSES AT
END OF YEAR P180,996,950.00 P130,486,775.00 P148,881,678
Thus, if We charge the
employees’ other benefits from the accumulated excess of revenues, We will come
up with the following:
Accumulated Excess of Revenues
Over Expenses (2001) P148,881,678.00
Less:
Other Benefits of Non-Teaching
Personnel 28,837,780.00
Balance
P120,043,898.00
Even if the other benefits of
the faculty members were to be charged from the remaining balance of the
Accumulated Excess of Revenues Over Expenses, there would still be sufficient
amount to fund the other benefits of the non-teaching personnel.
x x x x
However, while We subscribe to
UST’s position on “salary distortion”, Our earlier findings support the
petitioner’s contention that the UST has substantial accumulated income and
thus, We deem it proper to award an increase, not in salary, to prevent any
salary distortion, but in signing bonus. The arbitral award of P10,000 signing
bonus per employee awarded by public respondent is hereby increased to
P18,000.00.
We are well aware of the need
for the University to maintain a sound and viable financial condition in the
light of the decreasing number of its enrollees and the increasing costs of
construction of buildings and modernization of equipment, libraries,
laboratories and other similar facilities. To balance this concern of the
University with the need of its non-academic employees, the additional award,
which We deem reasonable, and to be funded from the University’s accumulated
income, is thus limited to the increase in signing bonus.[6]
Petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the appellate court denied in its September
23, 2005 Resolution. Hence, the instant petition which raises the following
issues:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR OF
SUBSTANCE WHEN IT RULED THAT THE MEMBERS OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT DID NOT
VOLUNTARILY AND KNOWINGLY ACCEPT THE ARBITRAL AWARD OF THE SECRETARY OF DOLE.
II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR OF
SUBSTANCE AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT INCREASED THE SIGNING
BONUS AWARDED BY THE SECRETARY OF DOLE TO EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENT FROM P10,000.00 TO P18,000.00.
III.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE
CLEAR MANDATE AND INTENTION OF R.A. 6728 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE GOVERNMENT
ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS AND TEACHERS IN PRIVATE EDUCATION ACT.
IV.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR OF
SUBSTANCE AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT RULED THAT THE FRINGE
BENEFITS BEING ENJOYED BY THE ACADEMIC AND NON-ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES OF PETITIONER
WERE SOURCED OUT FROM ITS OTHER INCOME.
V.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED PALPABLE ERROR OF
SUBSTANCE AMOUNTING TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN IT IGNORED THE TIME
HONORED PRINCIPLES GOVERNING PETITION FOR CERTIORARI INVOLVING LABOR CASES.[7]
Petitioner
alleges that, as of December 11, 2002, 526 regular non-academic employees – out
of a total of 619 respondent’s members – have decided to unconditionally abide
by the May 31, 2002 Order of the DOLE Secretary.[8]
A letter signed by the 526 non-academic employees allegedly reads:
December 3, 2002
TO: REV. FR.
TAMERLANE R. LANA, O.P.
Rector
REV. FR. JUAN V. PONCE, O.P.
Vice-Rector
KAMI NA NAKALAGDA SA IBABA AY
NAGPAPAABOT NG AMING TAHASANG PAGTANGGAP SA AWARD NG SECRETARY OF LABOR SA
AMING (CBA) DEADLOCK CASE.
x x x x[9]
Petitioner
claims that it began paying the wage adjustment and other benefits pursuant to
the May 31, 2002 Order of the DOLE Secretary; and that to date, 572 out of the
619 members of respondent have been paid. It now argues that by their acceptance of the
award and the resulting payments made to them, the said union members have ratified
its offer and thus rendered moot the case before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R.
SP No. 72965).
Petitioner
also argues that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering it to source part of
its judgment award from the school’s other income, claiming that Republic Act
6728[10]
does not compel or require schools to allocate more than 70% of the incremental
tuition fee increase for the salaries and benefits of its employees. Citing an authority in education law, it
stresses that –
Clearly, only 70% may be used
for the “payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of teaching
and non-teaching personnel,” since 20% “shall go to the improvement or
modernization of buildings, equipment, libraries, laboratories, gymnasia and
similar facilities and the payment of other costs of operation.”
A school does not exist solely
for the benefit of its teachers and non-teaching personnel. A school is
principally established to deliver quality education at all levels, as the
Constitution requires. Therefore, any
tuition fee increase authorized by either the DepEd Secretary, the CHED or the
Director General of the TESDA for private schools should not solely benefit the
teaching and non-teaching personnel but should rather be used for the welfare
of the entire school community, particularly the students. The students are entitled as a matter of right
to the improvement and modernization of the school “buildings, equipment,” as
this is fundamental to the maintenance or improvement of the quality of
education they receive.
Thus, if schools use any part of
the 20% reserved for the upgrading of school facilities to supplement the
salaries of their academic and non-academic personnel, they would not only be
violating the students’ constitutional right to quality education through
“improvement and modernization” but also committing a serious infraction of the
mandatory provisions of RA 6728.
The law is silent, however, on
the remaining ten percent of the tuition fee increase. The DepEd has referred
to it as the “return of investment” for proprietary schools and the “free
portion” for non-stock, non-profit educational institutions. This ten percent
(10%) is the only portion of the tuition fee increase which schools may use as
they wish.[11]
Petitioner
thus concedes liability only up to P300,831.00, which is the remaining balance
of the undistributed amount of P68,775,831.00, which represents 70% of the
incremental tuition fee proceeds for the period in question.
Petitioner
contends further that the appellate court’s award of additional signing bonus
(from P10,000.00 to P18,000.00) is contrary to the nature and principle behind
the grant of such benefit, which is one given as a matter of discretion and
cannot be demanded by right,[12]
a consideration paid for the goodwill that existed in the negotiations, which
culminate in the signing of a CBA.[13]
Petitioner claims that since this
condition is absent in the parties’ case, it was erroneous to have rewarded
respondent with an increased signing bonus.
Finally,
petitioner endorses the original award of the DOLE Secretary, calling her
disposition of the case “fair and equitable”[14]
and deserving of our attention, in light of the principle that –
The conclusions reached by
public respondent (Secretary of Labor) in the discharge of her statutory duty
as compulsory arbitrator, demand the high respect of this Court. The study and settlement
of these disputes fall within public respondent's distinct administrative
expertise. She is especially trained for this delicate task, and she has within
her cognizance such data and information as will assist her in striking the
equitable balance between the needs of management, labor, and the public.
Unless there is clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, this Court cannot
and will not interfere with the labor expertise of public respondent x x x.[15]
On
the other hand, respondent seeks to sustain the appellate court’s disposition, echoing
its ruling that even though majority of the non-teaching employees agreed to
petitioner’s offer and accepted payment thereupon, they are not precluded from receiving
additional benefits that the courts may award later on, bearing in mind that –
the employer and the employee do not stand on the same
footing. Considering the country’s prevailing economic conditions, the employee
oftentimes finds himself in no position to resist money proffered, thus, his
case becomes one of adherence and not of choice. This being the case, they are
deemed not to have waived any of their rights.[16]
As
regards petitioner’s assertion that the funds to cover for the cost of the
other benefits awarded by the DOLE Secretary may not be sourced from its other
income pursuant to R.A. 6728 as these benefits should only be paid out from the
70% tuition fee increment, respondent argues that R.A. 6728 –
does not provide that the increase or improvement of the
salaries and fringe benefits of the employees should be exclusively funded from
the income of the University which is derived from the increase in tuition fees. In fact, the statute has no application with respect to
the manner of disposition of the other incomes (as distinguished from income
derived from tuition fee increases) of the University, nor does it preclude or
exempt the latter from using its other income or part thereof to fund the cost
of increases or improvements in the salaries and benefits of its employees. x x
x
15. Contrary to the assertion of Petitioner, it is very clear that
the funds used by the University to cover the cost of other fringe benefits
(under the existing CBA) granted to the non-academic employees for AY 2001-2002
in the amount of P28,837,780.00 as observed by the Court of Appeals, came from
the other income of the University and not from the share of the said
employees in the income derived from the tuition fee increases during
the same period. Logically, the grant of the said fringe benefits could not have
come from the amount of P15,475,000.00 which was already allocated by the
University to cover the total cost of the increases in the salaries, grant of
signing bonus, and increase in the Christmas bonus to the non-academic
employees for AY 2001-2002.[17]
On
the appellate court’s award of additional signing bonus, respondent argues that
since no strike or any untoward incident occurred, goodwill between the parties
remained, which entitles respondent’s members to receive their signing bonus. Besides, respondent asserts that since
petitioner did not appeal the DOLE Secretary’s award, it may not now argue
against its grant, the issue remaining being the propriety of the awarded amount;
that is, whether or not it was proper for the appellate court to have raised it
from P10,000.00 to P18,000.00.
We
resolve to PARTIALLY GRANT the petition.
To
put matters in their proper context, we must first simplify the facts.
Although
the parties were negotiating on the CBA for academic years 2001 through 2006 (2001-2006
CBA Proposals), we are here concerned only with the economic provisions for the
academic year (AY) 2001-2002, specifically the appellate court’s increased
award of signing bonus, from P10,000.00 as originally granted by the DOLE
Secretary, to P18,000.00; the parties do not appear to question any other
disposition made by the DOLE Secretary.
Thus,
it has been determined that from the tuition fees for the academic year in
question, petitioner earned an increment of P101,036,330.37. Under R.A. 6728, 70% of that amount – or the
net[18]
amount of P68,775,831.15 – should be allotted for payment of salaries, wages,
allowances and other benefits of teaching and non-teaching personnel except
administrators who are principal stockholders of the school.
Of
this amount (P68,775,831.15), an aggregate of P15,475,000.00 (or 22.5 %) was
allocated to the university’s non-teaching or non-academic personnel, by way of
the following:
Increment on Salaries/Wages P 8,047,000.00
plus 13th month pay
(P1,000 x 13 months x 619
non-academic personnel)
Signing Bonus 6,190,000.00
(P10,000 per employee)
P2,000 Christmas Bonus 1,238,000.00
TOTAL 15,475,000.00
On
the other hand, the amount of P45 million (or 65.43% of P68,775,831.15) was
allocated to the teaching personnel.
After
distribution of the respective shares of the teaching and non-teaching
personnel, there remained a balance of P300,831.00 from the P68,775,831.15.
In
addition to the salary increase, signing and Christmas bonuses, the Court of
Appeals extended to respondent’s members the following fringe benefits for AY
2001-2002, which benefits petitioner has been giving its non-teaching employees
in the past, and which are included in the DOLE Secretary’s award – an award which
petitioner prays for this Court to affirm in toto:
1.
P3,000.00 mid-year
bonus P1,857,000.00
2.
6 sacks of
rice/employee
@ P1,000/sack 3,714,000.00
3.
Hospitalization
benefit 2,476,000.00
4.
Meal allowance
(P600/month/employee) 4,456,800.00
5.
Hazard pay (P200/month
for
198 entitled employees) 8,430,780.00
6.
Medicine Allowance
(P1,000/month/employee) 7,428,000.00 20,407,000.00
7.
SSS (P910.00
employer’s
share per employee) 6,759,480.00
8.
Pag-Ibig (2% of the
basic pay) 742,800.00
9.
Philhealth
(P125.00/employee) 928,500.00_____________
Total
P28,837,780.00
Clearly,
these fringe benefits would have to be obtained from sources other than the incremental
tuition fee proceeds (P68,775,831.15), since only P15,475,000.00 thereof was
set aside for the non-teaching personnel; the rest was allocated to the
teaching personnel.
The
appellate court, moreover, granted an increase in the signing bonus, that is,
from the DOLE Secretary’s award of P10,000.00, to P18,000.00. This, exactly, is the parties’ point of
contention.
Going
now to the question of whether respondent’s members’ individual acceptance of the award and the resulting payments made
by petitioner operate as a ratification of the DOLE Secretary’s award which
renders CA-G.R. SP No. 72965 moot, we find that such do not operate as a
ratification of the DOLE Secretary’s award; nor a waiver of their right to
receive further benefits, or what they may be entitled to under the law. The appellate court correctly ruled that the respondent’s
members were merely constrained to accept payment at the time. Christmas was then just around the corner, and
the union members were in no position to resist the temptation to accept
much-needed cash for use during the most auspicious occasion of the year. Time
and again, we have held that necessitous men are not, truly speaking, free men;
but to answer a present emergency, will submit to any terms that the crafty may
impose upon them.[19]
Besides,
as individual components of a union possessed of a distinct and separate
corporate personality, respondent’s members should realize that in joining the
organization, they have surrendered a portion of their individual freedom for
the benefit of all the other members; they submit to the will of the majority
of the members in order that they may derive the advantages to be gained from
the concerted action of all.[20]
Since the will of the members is
personified by its board of directors or trustees, the decisions it makes
should accordingly bind them. Precisely,
a labor union exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with
employers concerning terms and conditions of employment.[21]
What the individual employee may not do
alone, as for example obtain more favorable terms and conditions of work, the
labor organization, through persuasive and coercive power gained as a group,
can accomplish better.
Regarding
petitioner’s assertion that it was unlawful for the Court of Appeals to have
required it to source the award of fringe benefits (in the amount of P28,837,780.00)
from the school’s other income, since R.A. 6728 does not compel or require
schools to allocate more than 70% of the incremental tuition fee increase for
the salaries and benefits of its employees, we find it unnecessary to rule on
this matter. These fringe benefits are included
in the DOLE Secretary’s award – an award which petitioner seeks to affirm
in toto; this being so, it cannot now
argue otherwise. Since it abides by the
DOLE Secretary’s award, which it finds “fair and equitable,” it must raise the
said amount through sources other than incremental tuition fee proceeds.
Finally,
we come to the appellate court’s award of additional signing bonus, which we
find to be unwarranted under the circumstances. A signing bonus is a grant motivated by the
goodwill generated when a CBA is successfully negotiated and signed between the
employer and the union.[22] In the instant case, no CBA was successfully
negotiated by the parties. It is only
because petitioner prays for this Court to affirm in toto the DOLE Secretary’s May 31, 2002 Order that we shall allow
an award of signing bonus. There would
have been no other basis to grant it if petitioner had not so prayed. We shall
take it as a manifestation of petitioner’s liberality, which we cannot now allow
it to withdraw. A bonus is a gratuity or
act of liberality of the giver;[23]
when petitioner filed the instant petition seeking the affirmance of the DOLE
Secretary’s Order in its entirety, assailing only the increased amount of the
signing bonus awarded, it is considered to have unqualifiedly agreed to grant the
original award to the respondent union’s members.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The signing bonus of EIGHTEEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P18,000.00) per member of respondent Samahang Manggagawa ng U.S.T. as awarded
by the Court of Appeals is REDUCED to
TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00). All
other findings and dispositions made by the Court of Appeals in its January 31,
2005 Decision and September 23, 2005 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 72965 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII 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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp.
68-104; penned by Associate Justice Regalado E. Maambong and concurred in by
Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Lucenito N. Tagle.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] AN ACT PROVIDING GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS AND
TEACHERS IN PRIVATE EDUCATION, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, which provides
among others that:
Section 5. Tuition Fee Supplement for Students in
[11] Rollo, pp.
50-51, citing Sarmiento III, “Education Law and the Private Schools, A Practice
Guide for Educational Leaders and Policy Makers,” pp. 582-583.
[12] Citing Caltex
Refinery Employees Association v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 123782, September
16, 1997, 279 SCRA 218.
[13] Citing Manila
Electric Company v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598, January 27, 1999, 302 SCRA
204.
[14] Rollo, p. 53.
[15] Id. at 58,
citing Pier 8 Arrastre & Stevedoring
Services, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, G.R. No. 110854, February 13, 1995, 241
SCRA 294.
[16] Rollo, pp.
1059-1060.
[17]
[18] Less tuition fee adjustment of P2,785,143.00.
[19] Lorbes v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 139884, February 15, 2001, 351 SCRA 716.
[20] UST Faculty
[21] Labor Code, Article 212 (g).
[22] Meralco v. Secretary
of Labor, G.R. No. 127598, January 27, 1999, 302 SCRA 173.
[23] Manila Banking
Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 107487,
September 29, 1997, 279 SCRA 602.