G.R. No. 58870 - Cebu Institute of Technology vs. Ople

The resolution consolidated several cases involving disputes between private educational institutions or their employees/unions and various government officials or agencies.
The cases stemmed from claims primarily arising out of the implementation of tuition fee increases, the allocation of incremental proceeds for teachers’ and school personnel’s share, and associated matters such as negotiation fees and attorney’s fees.
The cases involved different petitioners including Cebu Institute of Technology, Divine Word College of Legazpi, Far Eastern University Employees Labor Union, and other private school employees’ associations as well as several respondents such as government officials (e.g., Ministers and Deputy Ministers) and labor-related agencies.

Petitioners raised issues regarding the validity and interpretation of section 42 of B.P. Blg. 232 (Education Act of 1982).
They contended that this section did not repeal Pres. Dec. No. 451 and argued that there was an undue delegation of absolute power to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.
The petitioners also questioned the applicability of the three-year prescription period under the Labor Code for money claims and incremental proceeds arising from tuition fee increases.

A key issue was the computation of a ten percent (10%) negotiation fee imposed on backwages payable to members of the bargaining unit.
Petitioners and the respondent school argued that the fee should apply only to the portion of incremental proceeds that exceeds the mandatory sixty percent (60%) allocation for teachers and other school personnel, not on the entire monetary package awarded by the NLRC.

The original complaint, filed on February 17, 1983, covered claims for several school years from 1979-1980 up to 1982-1983.
The petitioner argued that claims accruing more than three years prior to the filing date (i.e., before February 17, 1980) were prescribed under Article 292 of the Labor Code.
There was also a dispute on the proper basis for deriving the incremental proceeds from tuition fee increases.

The question was raised whether the Union’s claims for the school year 1974-1975 had prescribed, considering the complaint was filed in 1979.
Additional issues included the precise share of the sixty percent (60%) allotment (particularly with respect to allowances and other benefits) and a dispute over motions for recording attorney’s liens by different counsel representing the union.

Multiple motions for reconsideration and clarification were filed in four of the six consolidated cases decided earlier on December 18, 1987.
Issues presented in the motions ranged from the constitutionality of statutory provisions (including B.P. Blg. 232 and its relation to Pres. Dec. No. 451) to technical questions on the computation of benefits and attorney’s fees.
The resolution also addressed conflicting motions regarding the recording of attorney’s liens, specifically in the Far Eastern University case, with differing representations by Atty. Herminio Z. Florendo and Atty. Carlos M. Ortega.

Whether section 42 of B.P. Blg. 232 repealed Pres. Dec. No. 451.
Whether there was an undue delegation of legislative power to the Department of Education due to insufficient standards in section 42 of B.P. Blg. 232, rendering MECS Order No. 25, series of 1985, ultra vires.
The applicability of the three-year prescription period under Article 292 of the Labor Code for money claims deriving from tuition fee increases.

Should it apply to the entire ninety percent (90%) incremental economic package or only on the amount in excess of the law-mandated sixty percent (60%) share for teachers and school personnel?

Determining the period over which such backwages (subject to the negotiation fee) should be computed—in this instance, from school year 1985-1986 to 1987-1988.

Whether claims for school years prior to February 17, 1980, filed in 1983, are barred by prescription under Article 292 of the Labor Code.
The proper method for computing the incremental proceeds from tuition fee increases:

Whether the computation should be based on the actual amount collected from students or on a theoretical rate multiplied by the total student body.

Whether the Union’s claims under Pres. Dec. No. 451 for the school year 1974-1975 are already prescribed.
The extent of Far Eastern University’s liability with respect to the sixty percent (60%) allotment for increases in allowances and other benefits.
The proper adjustment of payments to employees receiving transportation allowances less than one-twelfth (1/12) of their basic salary (interpreted as part of the thirteenth month pay).
The conflicting motions concerning the recording of attorney’s liens and which counsel’s claim (contingent fee versus quantum meruit basis) should be honored, necessitating remand to the NLRC.