Wesleyan University v. Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Wesleyan University-Philippines (University) and respondent Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty and Staff Association (Association), the bargaining agent of rank-and-file employees, entered into a 5-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective June 1, 2003, until May 31, 2008. On August 16, 2005, the University issued a Memorandum providing guidelines on vacation and sick leave credits and vacation leave commutation, stating that credits are earned monthly and are not automatic, and that only vacation leave is commuted. The Association protested these unilateral changes, asserting they violated existing practices and specific provisions of the CBA regarding vacation and sick leave. Procedural History: The parties referred their dispute to a Voluntary Arbitrator (VA). The Association presented affidavits to prove an established practice of granting two retirement benefits: one from the Private Education Retirement Annuity Association (PERAA) Plan and another from the CBA Retirement Plan. The University announced a plan to implement a one-retirement policy. The VA ruled that the August 16, 2005 Memorandum and the one-retirement policy were contrary to law, ordering the University to reinstate the prior scheme for leaves and to continue extending retirement benefits under both plans. The University appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the VA's decision, finding the rulings supported by substantial evidence and holding that the unilateral amendments to the CBA were void. The CA denied the University's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The University filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. The University argued that the CA erred in sustaining the VA's ruling that affidavits constituted substantial evidence of a two-retirement benefit practice, that such practice was established, and that the August 16, 2005 Memorandum was contrary to existing policy.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and palpable error in sustaining the Voluntary Arbitrator’s ruling that the Affidavits submitted by Respondent WU-PFSA are substantial evidence that would substantiate that Petitioner WU-P has long been in the practice of granting its employees two (2) sets of Retirement Benefits, and whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and palpable error in sustaining the Voluntary Arbitrator’s ruling that a university practice of granting its employees two (2) sets of Retirement Benefits had already been established, especially in light of the alleged illegality and lack of authority of such grant. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and palpable error in sustaining the Voluntary Arbitrator’s ruling that it is incumbent upon Petitioner WU-P to show proof that no Board Resolution was issued granting two (2) sets of Retirement Benefits. Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and palpable error in revoking the 16 August 2005 Memorandum of Petitioner WU-P for being contrary to extant policy.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the University's unilateral implementation of new guidelines on vacation and sick leave credits and vacation leave commutation, as well as its attempt to implement a one-retirement policy, violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the non-diminution rule. The established practice of granting two retirement benefits was upheld based on substantial evidence, and the Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 was found to be contrary to the CBA.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the established practice of granting two retirement benefits and the alleged illegality and lack of authority: The Court affirmed the findings of the Voluntary Arbitrator and the Court of Appeals that the practice of giving two retirement benefits (one from PERAA Plan and another from CBA Retirement Plan) had ripened into a consistent and deliberate practice supported by substantial evidence. The affidavits presented by the respondent, consisting of retired and incumbent employees, were considered credible as they had no reason to perjure themselves and merely sought to present the truth. The petitioner failed to present any evidence to refute these affidavits or to prove that the PERAA Plan and the CBA Retirement Plan were one and the same. Furthermore, the petitioner's announcement of a plan to implement a "one-retirement plan" and the existence of a letter-memorandum from its legal counsel discussing defenses to abolish the "double retirement policy" bolstered the conclusion that a two-retirement policy was indeed an established practice. Thus, the unilateral elimination of this policy violated the non-diminution of benefits rule under Article 100 of the Labor Code. The Court found no evidence presented by the petitioner to substantiate its claim that the practice of granting two retirement benefits was illegal or unauthorized. The petitioner's assertion that benefits were erroneously given by a previous administration due to oversight or mistake was unsubstantiated. In the absence of proof of illegality or error, and given the substantial evidence of a long-standing practice, the established practice must be upheld. Any doubt in the interpretation of CBA provisions should be resolved in favor of labor, as mandated by the Constitution. There is no ratio provided that directly addresses the issue of whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and palpable error in sustaining the Voluntary Arbitrator’s ruling that it is incumbent upon Petitioner WU-P to show proof that no Board Resolution was issued granting two (2) sets of Retirement Benefits. The court's decision does not explicitly discuss the burden of proof regarding the existence of a Board Resolution. On the issue of the Memorandum dated August 16, 2005 regarding leave credits: The Court found the Memorandum contrary to the existing CBA. Sections 1 and 2 of Article XII of the CBA clearly stipulated that employees are entitled to 15 days of vacation leave and 15 days of sick leave with pay annually, with unused vacation leave being converted to cash at the end of each school year. The Memorandum, by stating that leave credits are earned monthly and are not automatic, effectively limited the available leave credits at the start of the school year, imposing a qualification not agreed upon by the parties in the CBA. Such unilateral imposition of limitations not found in the CBA is impermissible. Therefore, the Memorandum was correctly struck down by the lower tribunals.
Main Doctrine
Unilateral changes or suspensions in the implementation of the provisions of a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) cannot be allowed without the consent of both parties. An established practice of granting benefits, if consistently and deliberately made over a long period, cannot be unilaterally eliminated without violating the non-diminution rule.