University of Sto. Tomas v. National Labor Relations Commission
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: The University of Sto. Tomas (UST) terminated sixteen union officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union for alleged grave misconduct, serious disrespect, and conduct unbecoming a faculty member, stemming from defamatory statements published in a strike bulletin. This dismissal led to mass leaves of absence by other faculty members, disrupting classes. The faculty union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. Procedural History: The labor arbiter certified the matter to the Secretary of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Secretary Drilon issued an order on July 11, 1989, suspending the effects of termination and ordering the faculty members' return to work under the same terms and conditions. UST moved for reconsideration, requesting certification to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). On July 18, 1989, Secretary Drilon modified his order, certifying the dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration and ordering UST to readmit all faculty members under the same terms and conditions. This order was affirmed on July 27, 1989, with no further motions to be entertained. The NLRC subsequently issued a resolution on September 6, 1989, directing UST to reinstate the faculty members, either actually or via payroll, and to pay backwages. It also disallowed substantially equivalent academic assignments as not being in good faith compliance. UST filed a motion for clarification, which was withdrawn. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on October 25, 1989. The Petition: UST filed a petition for certiorari, assailing the NLRC resolution, arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ordering alternative remedies of actual or payroll reinstatement, directing payment of backwages, and deeming the grant of substantially equivalent academic assignments as not in good faith compliance. UST contended that actual reinstatement was not feasible due to existing contracts with new faculty members and potential prejudice to students, and that it possessed management prerogative in assigning work.
Issue(s)
Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) gravely abused its discretion in ordering the alternative remedies of actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in directing the University to pay full backwages starting from July 13, 1989. Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in considering the University's act of granting substantially equivalent academic assignments as not compliance in good faith. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in substituting its judgment for that of the University's management prerogative.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The NLRC resolution dated September 6, 1989, is MODIFIED. The University of Sto. Tomas is directed to temporarily reinstate, pending and without prejudice to the outcome of the labor dispute before the National Labor Relations Commission, the sixteen (16) dismissed faculty members to their actual teaching assignments, at the start of the second semester of the schoolyear 1990-1991. Prior to their temporary reinstatement to their actual teaching loads, the said faculty members shall be entitled to full wages, backwages, and other benefits. The Temporary Restraining Order dated October 25, 1989, is LIFTED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gravely abusing discretion in ordering alternative remedies of actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement: The Court ruled that the NLRC erred in granting the alternative remedy of payroll reinstatement, as it was not found in the Secretary of Labor's orders and only resulted in confusion. The Court emphasized that the Secretary's order specifically mandated readmission under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the dispute, which implies actual reinstatement. The remedy of payroll reinstatement was deemed an imposition by the NLRC beyond its authority as an implementing body. However, the Court noted that this error was an error of judgment, not grave abuse of discretion, and that payroll reinstatement could minimize problems in paying backwages. On the issue of gravely abusing discretion in directing the University to pay full backwages starting from July 13, 1989: The Court held that the petitioner's contention was unmeritorious, as a return-to-work order is immediately effective and executory despite the filing of a motion for reconsideration. The Court cited Philippine Air Lines Employees Association (PALEA) v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc. to support the immediate effectivity of such orders. Furthermore, even though the July 11 order was modified by the July 18 order, the return-to-work portion was affirmed. The Court also affirmed the NLRC's finding that the faculty members presented themselves for reinstatement on July 13, 1989, as factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded finality if supported by substantial evidence. The Court further reasoned that the faculty members' refusal to assume substantially equivalent academic assignments was justified as they were insisting on actual teaching loads, and since UST failed to comply with the order of actual reinstatement, the NLRC's award of backwages until actual reinstatement was correct. On the issue of committing grave abuse of discretion in considering the University's act of granting substantially equivalent academic assignments as not compliance in good faith: The Court affirmed the NLRC's ruling that the University should cease and desist from offering substantially equivalent academic assignments, as this was not compliance in good faith with the Secretary of Labor's order. The Court reasoned that such assignments, without actual teaching loads, cannot be considered reinstatement under the same terms and conditions. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code aims to maintain the status quo, and granting substantially equivalent assignments would alter this status quo, potentially aggravating the dispute. The Court noted that the nature of the assignments given did not fall under desirable academic pursuits and that the refusal of teachers to accept them led to further complications. On the issue of gravely abusing discretion by substituting its judgment for that of the University's management prerogative: The Court reiterated that while hiring and firing are management prerogatives, they are not absolute and are subject to limitations imposed by law, such as Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. This provision restricts the University's right to transfer or reassign employees to the extent that it calls for admission under the same terms and conditions. The NLRC was not substituting its judgment but merely complying with the mandate of the law. The Court acknowledged the University's fear that classrooms might be used for assailing the administration but deemed this fear speculative and insufficient to warrant deviation from the principle of actual reinstatement pending resolution of the dispute. The Court also pointed out that UST had used the temporary restraining order to recall actual teaching assignments even for those previously reinstated, which ran counter to fair play.
Main Doctrine
A university's grant of substantially equivalent academic assignments, in lieu of actual teaching loads, does not constitute compliance with a return-to-work order issued under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, as amended. Such assignments alter the status quo and are not considered reinstatement under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to the dispute. The welfare of students necessitates actual reinstatement, though equitable considerations may allow for a delayed commencement.