G.R. No. 210554 - Yu Kimteng vs. Young

The petition for certiorari was filed by the MLQ University Faculty Association and several named teachers against orders issued by Undersecretary Dionisio C. Dela Serna of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
The dispute arose from a complaint for unpaid salary differentials based on Presidential Decree No. 451, which authorized a tuition fee increase with 60% of the increment earmarked for raising the salaries of the faculty and non-faculty employees.
Petitioners alleged that the University paid only fifty centavos per lecture hour instead of the computed amounts of at least P2.11 or P2.15 per lecture hour for the respective school years.

On April 24, 1979, petitioners (and other unnamed faculty members listed in annexes) filed the complaint with the DOLE, seeking payment of the correct salary differentials.
Shortly after, on October 22, 1979, twenty-five complainants dropped out of the case, citing lack of interest.
On January 25, 1980, the MLQ Teachers and Allied Workers Union (NATAW) and other intervenors joined the cause.
Regional Director Pucan (DOLE National Capital Region) issued an order on June 15, 1983, awarding unprescribed salary differentials of P1.65 per lecture hour but excluding the claims that had prescribed.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on July 25, 1983, which was treated as an appeal. However, Deputy Minister Leogardo dismissed the appeal on December 12, 1984, for being filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period.
On December 6, 1985, Deputy Minister Leogardo reinstated the appeal, increasing the salary differentials to aggregate rates of P3.26 for earlier periods and P4.91 for later periods, and directing an adjustment of salary rates accordingly.

Both the University and complainants filed motions for reconsideration regarding the new order.
In an order dated November 18, 1987, Undersecretary Dela Serna annulled the December 6, 1985 decision on the ground that the complainants’ motion for reconsideration was filed out of time, thereby upholding the finality of the earlier order.
A subsequent motion for reconsideration of the Undersecretary’s order was filed by petitioners but was denied on February 17, 1988.
The petition for certiorari was then elevated on the basis that Undersecretary Dela Serna had gravely abused his discretion in several respects, including the timeliness of appeals, the annulment of the improved pay order, the holding that certain claims were prescribed, and the exclusion of the twenty-five faculty members who had dropped out.

Petitioners contended that the appeal should have been considered timely because it was purportedly filed within ten working days from the receipt of Director Pucan’s June 15, 1983 order.
The records, however, showed that petitioners received the order on June 22, 1983, and thus their motion for reconsideration was actually filed 33 days later.
The petitioners further argued that their written extrajudicial demand and the University president’s acknowledgment (both dated November 4, 1974) interrupted the prescriptive period applicable to their claims.
The Court had to consider prior jurisprudence regarding the computation of the appeal period (using calendar days rather than working days) as well as the proper application of prescriptive periods under the Labor Code and the Civil Code.

Whether the appeal filed by petitioners for reconsideration was timely, considering the ten-day period fixed by Article 223 of the Labor Code.
Whether Undersecretary Dela Serna gravely abused his discretion in annulling Deputy Minister Leogardo’s December 6, 1985 order, which had increased the pay differentials.
Whether the claims for salary differentials for the school years 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 were barred by prescription, given the timeline of events and the written extrajudicial demand.
Whether the exclusion of the twenty-five faculty members (who dropped out early on) from the benefits awarded was justified and in accordance with the parties’ respective filings and motions.
Whether the petitioners could invoke the ten-year prescriptive period under the Civil Code in lieu of the three-year period provided under the Labor Code for claims arising out of employer-employee relations.