Title
Supreme Court
Cainta Catholic School vs. Cainta Catholic School Employees Union
Case
G.R. No. 151021
Decision Date
May 4, 2006
School retires union leaders under CBA; strike declared illegal; Supreme Court upholds retirement validity, denies backwages.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 151021)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Nature of Case
    • Petitioners: Cainta Catholic School and Msgr. Mariano T. Balbago (School and School Director).
    • Respondent: Cainta Catholic School Employees Union (Union).
    • Central issue: Validity of a stipulation in a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allowing management to retire an employee before reaching the mandatory retirement age under the Labor Code.
    • Case history: The NLRC ruled in favor of the School; the Court of Appeals reversed; the petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
  • Background and CBA Provisions
    • On 6 March 1986, a CBA was agreed between the School and the Union effective until 31 May 1989, with provisions including:
      • Article IX on Duration allowing provisions to remain in effect until a new agreement is executed.
      • Article X, Section 2: Employees may be retired upon reaching 60 years old or after 20 years of service with at least the last 3 years continuous.
    • Msgr. Mariano Balbago appointed School Director in April 1987; the Union became inactive until it was reactivated with new officers elected on 10 September 1993.
    • On 15 October 1993, the School retired two union officers, Llagas (President) and Javier (Vice-President), who both had over 20 years of continuous service but were below 60 years of age, relying on the CBA provision on retirement.
  • Union’s Response and Labor Proceedings
    • The Union swiftly filed a notice of strike, and on 8 November 1993, commenced picketing the school.
    • The Secretary of Labor certified the labor dispute to the NLRC and ordered the suspension of Llagas and Javier’s termination, and reinstatement pending the case’s resolution.
    • The School filed a petition declaring the strike illegal; the Union filed an unfair labor practice complaint.
    • The cases were consolidated.
  • Decisions Below
    • NLRC (31 January 1997): Found retirement legal pursuant to CBA, dismissed the unfair labor practice charge due to insufficient evidence, declared the strike illegal, and declared union officers who struck to have lost employment status.
    • Court of Appeals (20 August 2001): Reversed NLRC, ruling that the retirement was an unfair labor practice intended to “bust” the reactivated union, declared the strike legal, and ordered reinstatements and payment of damages to certain union officers including Llagas and Javier’s heirs; denied petition for contempt.
    • The School filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
  • Additional Facts Regarding Employees’ Status
    • Llagas held the position of Dean of Student Affairs performing managerial functions.
    • Javier was Subject Area Coordinator with supervisory functions recommending hiring, termination and disciplinary actions.
    • The NLRC found Llagas as a managerial employee and Javier as a supervisory employee, thus disqualifying them from union membership or limiting the union’s representation capacity.

Issues:

  • Whether the School’s decision to retire Llagas and Javier pursuant to the CBA constitutes unfair labor practice.
  • Whether the strike initiated by the Union is legal.
  • Whether some union officers who were ordered dismissed are entitled to back wages.
  • Whether Llagas and Javier were managerial and supervisory employees disqualifying them from union membership and hence affecting the legitimacy of the strike.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.