Case Digest (G.R. No. 58870)
Facts:
Cebu Institute of Technology (CIT) v. Hon. Blas Ople, G.R. No. 58870; Divine Word College of Legazpi v. Hon. Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 68345; Far Eastern University Employees Labor Union v. Far Eastern University and the National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 69224-25; Gregorio T. Fabros et al. v. Hon. Jaime C. Laya, G.R. No. 70832; Jasmin Biscocho et al. v. Hon. Augusto Sanchez, G.R. No. 76521; Ricardo C. Valmonte & Corazon Badiola v. Hon. Augusto Sanchez, G.R. No. 76596, April 15, 1988, Supreme Court En Banc, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.
Several consolidated petitions and motions for reconsideration/clarification were filed after the Court’s decision of December 18, 1987 in a group of cases concerning the allocation and recovery of incremental proceeds from tuition fee increases under Presidential Decree No. 451 and the Education Act (B.P. Blg. 232). Movants in the Fabros case (G.R. No. 70832) argued that Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 232 did not repeal Pres. Dec. No. 451, that Section 42 improperly delegated legislative power to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), and that MECS Order No. 25 (s. 1985) was ultra vires; they also raised questions about the applicability of the Labor Code prescription period to the claims. The Court had to decide whether to re-open issues already addressed in the December 18 decision.
In the Biscocho case (G.R. No. 76521), parties sought clarification about a Court-affirmed NLRC award requiring the school to deduct ten percent (10%) of backwages as a “negotiation fee” (attorney’s/agency fee) and remit it to the union. Dispute centered on the proper base for the 10%—whether it should be computed on the whole ninety percent (90%) economic package awarded by the NLRC or only on the portion that was negotiable (i.e., the amount in excess of the mandatory sixty percent (60%) share allocated by law to teachers and school personnel). The Solicitor General also construed “backwages” temporally as amounts accruing only up to April 14, 1986.
In Divine Word College (G.R. No. 68345) petition, the school argued that claims accruing more than three years before the filing of the complaint (filed February 17, 1983) had prescribed. It also contested the method for computing incremental proceeds where many students paid reduced or no tuition, arguing computation should be on actual collections rather than a rate times the number of students.
In the Far Eastern University matters (G.R. Nos. 69224-25) the respondent university raised prescription for claims (notably school year 1974–1975) given the original complaint filed July 7, 1979; the Court also confronted issues about what portion of the sixty percent (60%) mandated allotment remained payable where portions of that allotment had been used to fund allowances and benefits. A separate dispute over entitlement to attorney’s fees and the recording of attorney’s liens arose: Atty. Herminio Z. Florendo sought an attorney’s lien on a quantum meruit basis for earlier services; Atty. Carlos M. Ortega asserted a ten percent (10%) contingent-fee agreement approved by the union, and the Court had to determine entitlement and whether to remand the lien issues.
The Supreme Court resolved these petitions by way o...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Section 42 of B.P. Blg. 232 repeal Presidential Decree No. 451, and did Section 42 unlawfully delegate legislative power to the DECS?
- Does the three-year prescription under Article 292 of Presidential Decree No. 442 (Labor Code) apply to money claims for incremental proceeds arising from tuition fee increases under Pres. Dec. No. 451?
- What is the proper base for computing the ten percent (10%) negotiation fee ordered by the NLRC—should it be computed on the entire ninety percent (90%) economic package or only on the amount in excess of the sixty percent (60%) statutorily allotted to teachers and other school personnel?
- What is the temporal and substantive meaning of “backwages” as used in the NLRC order and the Court’s affirmance—does it refer only to amounts accruing before April 14, 1986, or to all back payments due under the economic package for the contract period?
- How should the incremental proceeds from tuition fee increases be computed when some students pay reduced or no tuition—on the theoretical increase multiplied by enrolled students or on actual collections?
- Were the unions’ claims for specific earlier school years (e.g., school year 1974–1975; claims prior to February 17, 1980) barred by prescription?
- Should the...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)