3/17/2017 G.R.No.

139940

THIRDDIVISION

ARELLANO UNIVERSITY G.R.No.139940
EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS

UNION, CARLOS C. A. RIVAS, Present:

JR., SIMEON B. INOCENCIO,
ROMULO D. JACOB, NYMIA M. QUISUMBING,Chairperson,
PINEDA, BENEDICTO I. NIETO, CARPIO,
JR., LUIS JACINTO, MILBERT CARPIOMORALES,
MORA, MONICO CALMA, TINGA,and
CONSTANCIO BAYHONAN, VELASCO,JR.,JJ.

BERNARDO SABLE, NESTOR
BRINOSA, NANJI

MACARAMPAT, EDUARDO
FLORAGUE and DIONY S.
LUMANTA,
Petitioners, Promulgated:


September19,2006
versus


COURT OF APPEALS,
NATIONALLABORRELATIONS
COMMISSION, and ARELLANO
UNIVERSITY,INC.,
Respondents.

xx

DECISION

CARPIOMORALES,J.:

Subject of the present petition for certiorari are the Court of Appeals Resolution of April 13,
[1] [2]
1999 and Resolution of September 3, 1999 which dismissed petitioners petition for
certiorariforhavingbeenfiledsixdaysbeyondthereglementaryperiodunderSection4,Rule
65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended by Supreme Court En Banc Resolution
datedJuly21,1998reading:

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 1/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

Ifthepetitionerhadfiledamotionfornewtrialorreconsiderationinduetimeafternoticeofsaid
judgment,orderorresolution,theperiodhereinfixedshallbeinterrupted.Ifthemotionisdenied,
theaggrievedpartymayfilethepetitionwithintheremainingperiod,butwhichshallnotbeless
thanfive(5)daysinanyevent,reckonedfromnoticeofsuchdenial.Noextensionoftimeto
filethepetitionshallbegrantedexceptforthemostcompellingreasonandinnocasetoexceed
fifteen(15)days.(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)


Petitioners,inthemain,pleadfortheapplicationofsubstantialjusticeoverprocedurallapses,
conformably to this Courts 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
[3]
proceeding.

The record shows that the September 3, 1999 Resolution of the Court of Appeals denying
petitioners motion for reconsideration was received by them on September 13, 1999. On
September 27, 1999, petitioners filed a motion for 30day extension of time to file petition
[4]
which this Court granted. On October 28, 1999, petitioners filed the present petition for
[5]
certiorari. Doubtless,petitionerscouldnothaveavailedofsuchpetitionasameresubstitute
[6]
forlostappeal, hence,thisCourttreatsitasoneforreviewunderRule45.

Indeed,Section4ofRule65ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedurewasamendedbytheJuly21,
1998 Resolution of this Court En Banc by adding to it as second paragraph the abovequoted
amendment.

ThesameSectionwas,however,subsequentlyamendedbythisCourtsEnBancResolution in
A.M.No.00203SCwhichtookeffectonSeptember1,2000providingfora60dayperiodto
file petition under Rule 65 from denial of a motion for reconsideration or new trial. As thus
furtheramended,Section4ofRule65nowreads:

SEC.4.Whenandwherepetitionfiled.Thepetitionshallbefilednotlaterthansixty(60)days
fromnoticeofthejudgment,orderorresolution.Incaseamotionforreconsiderationornewtrial
is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be
countedfromnoticeofthedenialofsaidmotion.(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)


Theruleissettledthatremedialstatutesormodesofprocedure,whichdonotcreatenewrights
or take away vested rights but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 2/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

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
undeterminedatthetimeoftheirpassage,andaredeemedretroactiveinthatsenseandtothat
[7]
extent.Hence,inalonglineofcases, thenewperiodunderSection4ofRule65wasgiven
retroactiveapplication.OfcourseatthetimetheassailedResolutionsoftheappellatecourtwere
issued in 1999, Section 4 of Rule 65 had not yet been amended by this Courts Resolution in
A.M.No.00203SC.

TherebeingnoreasonwhySection4ofRule65,asamendedin2000bythisCourt,maynotbe
given retroactive application to petitioners petition, it now gives said application. While,
[8]
normally, a remand of the case to the appellate court for further proceedings is done, this
Courtnowoptstodecidethepetitiononthemeritstoforestallfurtherdelayinitsdisposition.

OnDecember12,1997,theArellanoUniversityEmployeesandWorkersUnion(theUnion),the
exclusive bargaining representative of about 380 rankandfile 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.Interferinginunionactivities

[9]
2.UnionBustingviolationofCBAsArticleIV,Section2

3. UnionBustingdisregarding the unions request to deduct penalties from its members who
wereabsentandwithoutjustifiablereasonsduringunionmeetingsand

4. Contracting Workout the management is contracting out services and functions being
[10]
performedbyUnionmembers.


TheNoticeofStrikewasdocketedasNCMBNCRNS1252097.

Subsequently or on December 17, 1997, a majority of the members of the Union filed a
[11]
December 15, 1997 petition for audit of union funds before the Office of the National
Capital Region Director of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against the
officersoftheUnion.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 3/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

OnMarch11,1998,theRegionalDirectorofDOLENCRdirectedtheUnionofficerstocalla
general membership meeting to, among other things, render an accounting of union funds
[12]
amountingtoP481,117.28whichwereremittedperthecheckoffstatement.

AlsoonMarch11,1998,thenDOLESecretaryCresencianoB.TrajanocertifiedtheNoticeof
StrikeforcompulsoryarbitrationtotheNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)which
thelatterassignedtoLaborArbiterCristetaD.Tamayo. The Labor Arbiter set the dispute for
hearing/conference on July 3, 1998, July 17, 1998, and August 11, 1998. No settlement was
[13]
reachedbytheparties,however.

On July 28, 1998, the University moved for the consolidation with the ULP charge (NCMB
[14]
NCRNS1252097) the Interpleader it filed against the Union and some of its members,
docketedasNLRCNCRCaseNo.00020203698andpendingbeforeLaborArbiterFelipeT.
Garduque II, and the Complaint the Union filed for underpayment of wages arising from the
changeinthemannerofcomputationofsalaryofemployeesandnonpaymentofSundaypay,
docketedasNLRCNCRCaseNo.00020142298andpendingbeforeLaborArbiterRamon
[15]
ValentinT.Reyes,bothofwhichinvolvethesameparties.

Before the NLRC could act on the Universitys motion for consolidation, DOLE Secretary
[16]
BienvenidoE.Laguesma,byOrder ofAugust5,1998,certifiedforcompulsoryarbitration
to the NLRC a second Notice of Strike filed by the Union on July 16, 1998, docketed as
NCMBNCRNS0727798,chargingtheUniversitywiththefollowing:

a.ViolationofCollectiveBargainingAgreement(CBA),Art.Vwithholdingofunionanddeath
benefits

b.Violation of CBA, Art. VI nongranting of ten (10%) percent salary increase to some union
members

c.Illegal/unauthorizeddeductionsinthepayroll

d.Unioninterferencecirculatinglettersagainsttheunionand

[17]
e.NonimplementationoftheretirementplanasapprovedbytheBIR.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 4/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

AstrikewasinfactstagedonAugust5,1998.

By the same Order of August 5, 1998, the DOLE Secretary directed the strikers to return to
workwithintwentyfour(24)hours.TheorderwasservedupontheUniononAugust6,1998,
[18]
andthefollowingday,August7,1998,atabout3:00p.m.,theUnionlifteditsstrike.

ThestrikestagedbytheUniononAugust57,1998promptedtheUniversitytofileonAugust
24,1998apetitiontodeclarethesameillegal,docketedasNLRCNCRCaseNo.000806897
98,whichwasalsoconsolidatedwiththeothercases.

[19]
Resolvingtheconsolidatedcases,theNLRC,byDecision ofOctober12,1998,disposedas
follows:

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendereddeclaring:

1. That the Unions two notices of strike docketed as NCMBNCRNS1252097 and
NCMBNCRNS0727798 were, to the extent as they concern the issues herein
resolved,withoutmerit

2. That as a consequence, the University is absolved from the charges of Unfair Labor
Practicecontainedinsaidnoticesofstrike

3. ThelossofemploymentstatusofalltheindividualrespondentsinNLRCNCRCase
No.00080689798and

4.ThatthereisnodiminutionofworkersbenefitsinNLRCNCRCaseNo.00020142298,
becauseapartfromtheUnionsfailuretoproveit,theUniversity,basedonexistinglaws,
is correct in using 314 days as divisor in computing the daily wage of its daily paid
employees.

[20]
SOORDERED. (Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)
The NLRC found that what triggered the strike was the Unions suspicion that the petition for
auditofunionfundswasinitiatedbytheUniversity.TheNLRC,citinganOrderofMarch11,
1998issuedbytheDOLERegionalDirector,foundthethereinpetitionerstohaveinitiated,out
oftheirownvolition,thefilingofthepetition.Itthusconcludedthattherewasnofactualbasis
[21]
toholdtheUniversityguiltyofinterferenceinunionactivities.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 5/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

Ontheallegationofunionbusting,theNLRCruledthattherefusaloftheUniversitytodeduct
penaltiesfromthesalariesofmembersoftheUnionwhofailedtoattendmeetingswasbasedon
[22] [23]
ArticleIV,Section2 oftheCBAvisvisSection1 ofthesameArticlewhichrequiresas
condition for a valid checkoff prior submission to the management of individual checkoff
[24]
authorizations,arequirementwhichwasnotmetbytheUnion. Besides,theNLRCheld,the
lawmandatesthattheUnionshouldnotbearbitrary,excessiveoroppressiveinimposingafine.
[25]

OntheclaimthattheUniversityhadbeencontractingoutwork,theNLRCheldthatthesame
[26]
wasneverraisedduringtheconciliationmeetingsattheNCMBlevel.

RespectingthesecondNoticeofStrike,theNLRCfoundthatonlythechargesofviolationof
the CBA for withholding union dues and death benefits, and the nonimplementation of the
retirementplan,asapprovedbytheBIR,wereleftforresolutionastheUniondroppedtheother
[27]
issuesraisedthereinaftertheNCMBhearingsonJuly21,1998andJuly28,1998.

Crediting the explanation of the University that its withholding of union dues and death aid
benefitswasuponthewrittenrequestofseveralunionmembersthemselves,theNLRCheldthat
noULPwascommitted.

OnthechargeofnonimplementationoftheretirementplanbytheUniversity,theNLRCfound
[28]
thatthesamewasbaselessanditwasinfactnotventilatedbeforetheNCMB.

InNLRCNCRCaseNo.00020203698,theNLRCruledthattheUniversitymaynotbeheld
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
meettherequirementsprovidedforinSections1and2,ArticleIVoftheCBAandsecondly,an
interpleader had been filed by the University for the parties to litigate their claims before the
[29]
NLRC. TheNLRCalsoruledthattheresolutioncallingforsuchdeductionwasnotvalidas
[30]
itwasnotevensignedbythemajorityofUnionofficersandcirculatedtothemembers.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 6/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

InNLRCNCRCaseNo.00080689798(theUniversityspetitiontodeclarethestrikestaged
bytheUniononAugust57,1998illegal),theNLRCgrantedthepetitionanddeclaredtheloss
ofemploymentstatusofallthestrikersforknowinglydefyingtheReturntoWorkOrderofthe
DOLE Secretary dated August 5, 1998, said Order having been served upon the union on
August6,1998butitwasonlyonAugust7,1998,atabout3:00p.m.,thatthestrikewaslifted.
[31]

In NLRC NCR Case No. 00020142298, the NLRC ruled that the University was correct in
[32]
using314daysasdivisor,insteadof365days,incomputingtheequivalentdailyrate ofpay
ofaworker.

TheUnionetal.(hereafterpetitioners)filedamotionforreconsiderationoftheNLRCdecision
[33]
whichwasdeniedbyResolution ofJanuary20,1999.Hence,theyelevatedthedecisionto
theCourtofAppealsviapetitionforcertiorariwhichwas,asstatedearlyon,dismissed.

In the present petition, petitioners insist that the University violated the CBA by withholding
unionduesanddeathbenefits.TheUniversitycountersthatontherequestofUnionmembersin
light of their gripes against the Union and its officers, it did withhold said dues and benefits
which they deposited with the DOLE where the parties could settle the issues among
themselves.

[34]
ThethenprevailingRulesImplementingtheLaborCode,BookV ,RuleXVIIIprovidedthat

Section1.Rightofuniontocollectdues.Therightoftheincumbentbargainingrepresentativeto
check off and to collect dues resulting therefrom shall not be affected by the pendency of a
[35]
representationcaseoranintrauniondispute. (Emphasissupplied)


ToconstituteULP,however,violationsoftheCBAmustbegross.GrossviolationoftheCBA,
underArticle261oftheLaborCode,meansflagrantand/ormaliciousrefusaltocomplywiththe
economicprovisionsthereof.Evidently,theUniversitycannotbefaultedforULPasitingood
faithmerelyheededtheabovesaidrequestofUnionmembers.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 7/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

OntheNLRCsdeclarationoflossofemploymentstatusofthestrikers,thepertinentprovision
ofArticle264oftheLaborCodeprovides:

Article264.

xxxx
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
declaredtohavelosthisemploymentstatus(Emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)


Under the immediately quoted provision, an ordinary striking worker may not be declared to
havelosthisemploymentstatusbymereparticipationinanillegalstrike.Theremustbeproof
that he knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts during the strike. While the
[36]
Universityadducedphotographs showingstrikerspicketingoutsidetheuniversitypremises,
[37]
itfailedtoidentifywhotheywere.Itthusfailedtomeetthesubstantialityofevidencetest
applicableindismissalcases.

Petitionerunionmembersmustthusbereinstatedtotheirformerposition,withoutbackwages.
Ifreinstatementisnolongerpossible,theyshouldreceiveseparationpayofOne(1)Monthfor
[38]
everyyearofserviceinaccordancewithexistingjurisprudence.

With respect to the union officers, as already discussed, their mere participation in the illegal
strikewarrantstheirdismissal.

Asforpetitionersclaimofsubstantialdiminutionoftheirsalaryonaccountofthedivisorused
by the University in its computation 314 days, instead of 365 days, this Court finds nothing
wrong therewith. Sundays being unworked and considered unpaid rest days, while regular
[39]
holidays as well as special holidays considered as paid days, the factor used by the
Universitymerelycomplieswiththebasicruleinthisjurisdictionofnowork,nopay.Theright
[40]
tobepaidforunworkeddaysisgenerallylimitedtothetenlegalholidaysinayear.

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals Resolution of April 13, 1999 and Resolution of
September3,1999areSETASIDE.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 8/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

TheNLRCDecisionofOctober12,1998andResolutionofJanuary20,1999areAFFIRMED,
with the MODIFICATION that the dismissal of petitionerunion members MONICO
CALMA,CONSTANCIOBAYHONAN,BERNARDOSABLE,NESTORBRINOSA,NANJI
MACARAMPAT, EDUARDO FLORAGUE and DIONY S. LUMANTA is SET ASIDE, and
they are thus ordered REINSTATED WITHOUT BACKWAGES. If their reinstatement is no
longerpossible,however,theyshouldbegivenSEPARATIONPAYattherateofOne(1)Month
payforeveryyearofservice.

SOORDERED.


CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice




WECONCUR:



LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairman








ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice



DANTEO.TINGA
AssociateJustice


http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 9/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice



ATTESTATION


IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecase
wasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
AssociateJustice
Chairperson



CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.



ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

[1]
Rollo,pp.205207.PennedbyJusticeMarinaL.BuzonwiththeconcurrenceofJusticesJesusM.ElbiniasandEugenioS.
Labitoria.
[2]
Id.at208209.AlsopennedbyJusticeMarinaL.Buzon.
[3]
Id.at23.
[4]
Id.at34.
[5]
Id.at14.
[6]
VideBorjav.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.95667,May8,1991,196SCRA847,851.
[7]
Ramatek Philippines, Inc. v. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 139526, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 129, 139141 Pobre v. Court of
Appeals,G.R.No.141805,July8,2005,463SCRA50,6263PCILeasingandFinance,Inc.v.GoKo,G.R.No.148641,March
31,2005,454SCRA586,590592Santiagov.BergensenD.Y.Philippines,G.R.No.148333,November17,2004,442SCRA
486,489491EmbassyoftheIslamicRepublicofIranv.FOPCorporation,G.R.No.145043,February13,2004,422SCRA
597,601602SanLuisv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.142649,September13,2001,365SCRA279,284285Serranov.Courtof

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 10/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

Appeals,G.R.No.139420,August15,2001,363SCRA223,228229Pfizer,Inc.v.Galan,G.R.No.143389,May25,2001,
358SCRA240,245246UnityFishingDevelopmentCorp.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.145415,February2,2001,351SCRA
140,142143.
[8]
VidePobrev.CourtofAppeals,supraPCILeasingandFinance,Inc.v.GoKo,supraSantiagov.BergensenD.Y.Philippines,
supraEmbassyoftheIslamicRepublicofIranv.FOPCorporation,supra.
[9]
ARTICLEIV.UNIONDUESANDCHECKOFFS
xxxx
Section2.UponsubmissionanddeliverytotheManagementoftheindividualcheckoffoftheUnion
dues and assessments, the management will transmit monthly the amount collected to the treasurer of the
Union.(NLRCRecords,Vol.7,AnnexE,p.113).
[10]
NLRCrecords,Vol.7,AnnexD,p.111rollo,p.54.
[11]
NLRCrecords,Vol.7,AnnexA,p.88.
[12]
VideOrderofRegionalDirectorofDOLENCRMaximoLim,NLRCrecords,Vol.7,AnnexB,pp.107108.
[13]
Rollo,p.55.
[14]
NLRCrecords,Vol.7,AnnexOO,p.224.
[15]
Rollo,p.55.
[16]
NLRCrecords,Vol.7,AnnexFFF,p.304.
[17]
Rollo,p.55.
[18]
Id.at69.
[19]
Id.at5374.
[20]
Id.at73.
[21]
Id.at59.
[22]
SupraNote9.
[23]
ARTICLEIV.UNIONDUESANDCHECKOFFS
Section1.TheManagementagreestocheckofformakepayrolldeductionsoftheUnionduesandother
agreement or assessments, once a month, provided the Union submits to the Management individual check off
authorization.(NLRCrecords,Vol.7,p.113).
[24]
Rollo,p.60.
[25]
Id.at61.
[26]
Ibid.
[27]
Id.at62.
[28]
Id.at64.
[29]
Id.at66.
[30]
Id.at67.
[31]
Id.at6869.
[32]
Id.at7172.
[33]
Id.at7690.
[34]
AsamendedbytheRulesandRegulationsImplementingRA6715,andfurtheramendedbyDepartmentOrderNo.09,Seriesof
1997,whichtookeffectonJune21,1997.
[35]
Presently,theImplementingRulesofBookV,Section1,RuleXIII(DepartmentOrderNo.4003,Seriesof2003)provides:
Section1.Rightofuniontocollectduesandagencyfees.Theincumbentbargainingagentshallcontinuetobe
entitled to checkoff and collect dues and agency fees despite the pendency of a representation case, other
inter/intrauniondisputesorrelatedlaborrelationsdisputes.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 11/12
3/17/2017 G.R.No.139940

[36]
NLRCrecords,Vol7,AnnexNNN1toAnnexNNN10,pp.317320.
[37]
AssociationofIndependentUnionsinthePhilippinesv.NLRC,G.R.No.120505,March25,1999,305SCRA219,231233.
[38]
VidePhilippineDiamondHotelandResort,Inc.v.ManilaDiamondHotelEmployeesUnion,G.R.No.158075,June30,2006
MaranawHotelsandResortCorporationv.NLRC,363Phil.163,168(1999)GoldCityIntegratedPortService,Inc.v.NLRC,
G.R.No.103560,July6,1995,245SCRA627,641.
[39]
Rollo,p.72.
[40]
Odangov.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.147420,June10,2004,431SCRA633,641.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/september2006/G.R.%20No.%20139940.htm 12/12