G.R. No. 86453 - People vs. Ponciano y Sabolan

Petitioner Saint Louis University, Inc. (SLU) employed respondent Evangeline C. Cobarrubias as an associate professor in its College of Human Sciences.
Cobarrubias was a member of the Union of Faculty and Employees of Saint Louis University (UFESLU).

Two CBAs were at issue: 2001-2006 and 2006-2011 agreements between SLU and UFESLU.
Both contained a provision on forced leave for teaching employees failing yearly evaluations, specifically:

Section 7.7(a): Teaching employees who fail the yearly evaluation for three cumulative years in five years shall be placed on forced leave for one regular semester, suspending all benefits during that time.

Cobarrubias was placed on forced leave for the first semester of School Year (SY) 2007-2008.
This was due to failing evaluations in SY 2002-2003, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007, with scores of 85, 77, and 72.9 points respectively, below the required rating of 87 points.

Cobarrubias challenged the forced leave through the grievance machinery under the CBA but failed to settle the dispute.
She filed a case for illegal forced leave or illegal suspension with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB).
Upon failure of mediation, the parties submitted the controversy for voluntary arbitration before Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) Daniel T. FariAas.
Cobarrubias argued that a prior Court of Appeals (CA) decision (CA-G.R. SP No. 90596) held that the forced leave for three failed evaluations must be coterminous with the CBA in force during the corresponding five-year period.
SLU countered that the prior CA decision was pending before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 176717) and thus not yet final, and that the forced leave applies irrespective of which CBA was in effect, provided that three failures occurred within any five-year period.

VA Daniel T. FariAas dismissed the case on October 26, 2007.
He ruled the prior CA decision was not final due to the pending Supreme Court appeal.
He found that the CBA provision allowed forced leave on failing three times in any five-year period, with no limitation tied to the duration of a particular CBA.
Cobarrubias received the VA decision on November 20, 2007.

Cobarrubias filed a petition for review with the CA on December 5, 2007, within 15 days from receipt of VA’s decision but did not pay filing fees nor attach required documents.
CA dismissed the petition outright on January 14, 2008 due to procedural lapses.
Cobarrubias received the dismissal resolution on January 31, 2008.
On February 15, 2008, she filed a motion for reconsideration, this time attaching payment and documents, arguing that the dismissal was on technical grounds and the case should be heard on merits.
On July 30, 2008, the CA reinstated the petition, finding substantial compliance.
SLU protested that the VA decision had become final and executory due to failure to pay fees on time.

The CA set aside the VA decision, interpreting the phrase “three (3) cumulative years in five (5) years” in Section 7.7(a) to mean within the effectivity of the CBA in force during the five-year period.
Consequently, it ordered SLU to pay Cobarrubias all benefits while on forced leave during the first semester SY 2007-2008.
CA denied SLU’s motion for reconsideration.

SLU filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing:

The CA erred in reinstating Cobarrubias’ petition despite nonpayment/delayed payment of docket fees.
The VA decision had become final and executory.
The forced leave provision applies irrespective of CBA duration.

Cobarrubias maintained the CA’s ruling on substantial compliance and on the interpretation of the forced leave provision.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reinstating Cobarrubias’ petition for review despite her failure to pay the required docket fees within the reglementary period.
Whether the CA erred in reversing the Voluntary Arbitrator’s decision on the substantive forced leave issue.