Case Digest (G.R. No. 86819)
Facts:
Adamson Ozanam Educational Institution, Inc. (Adamson University) v. Adamson University Faculty and Employees Association and Conrado Maglaya, Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 86819, November 09, 1989, Supreme Court First Division, Gancayco, J., writing for the Court.In 1983 the then Ministry of Education, Culture & Sports (MECS) authorized Adamson University to increase tuition fees by 10% and 5% for the 1983–84 school year. The Adamson University Faculty and Employees Association (AUFEA) filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor & Employment (MOLE) asserting that under P.D. No. 451 sixty percent (60%) of tuition increment proceeds must be allocated to salary and wage increases, and sought recovery of that 60% share from the University.
The University defended on two principal grounds: (1) that B.P. Blg. 232 (Educational Act of 1982) repealed P.D. No. 451; and (2) that no actual increment proceeds existed attributable to the 1983–84 tuition increase upon which to compute a 60% share. A Labor Arbiter dismissed AUFEA’s complaint on March 31, 1986. AUFEA appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which on September 30, 1988 set aside the arbiter’s decision and ordered the University to remit P1,298,160.00 as the 60% share of the tuition increments for 1983–84. The University moved for reconsideration; the NLRC denied the motion in a January 30, 1989 resolution as filed out of time.
The University then filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Court initially dismissed the petition on February 22, 1989 for failure to show grave abuse of discretion, but granted reconsideration of that dismissal after the parties filed additional pleadings. Petitioner raised two principal issues: (1) that service of the NLRC decision upon the security guard of the building housing the former counsel’s office (Atty. Andres Narvasa) on October 11, 1988 was ineffective and therefore the 10‑day appeal/reconsideration period never began; and (2) on the merits, that the NLRC erroneously interpreted the law in ordering remittance of the 60% incremental proceeds because P.D. No. 451 had been repealed and the applicable law (and MECS Order No. 25) allowed broader disposition of the 60% (including items secured by collective bargaining).
The Court’s consideration recited the service chronology: the NLRC decision was addressed to counsel’s office at the TOEFEMI Building where Atty. Narvasa had maintained an office but had been elevated to the Supreme Court and the office dissolved; a copy served via the building security guard was forwarded by the former office to current counsel on November 5, 1988, and a motion for reconsideration was filed November 15, 1988. The NLRC maintained the service was valid because counsel had not formally withdrawn, while petitioner contended that service on the security guard was invalid under the service rules. The Court also considered prior jurisprudence and statutory provisions, inc...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was service of the NLRC decision by leaving a copy with the building security guard effective to start the period to appeal or file a motion for reconsideration under the service rules?
- On the merits, did the NLRC commit reversible error in ordering Adamson University to remit 60% of the tuition increment proceeds to AUFEA, given the repeal of P.D. No. 451 by B.P. Blg. 232 and the scope of permissible charges against the 60% un...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)