Case Digest (G.R. No. 256091)
Facts:
Son, Antiola, and Pollarco v. University of Santo Tomas, G.R. No. 211273, April 18, 2018, Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners Raymond A. Son, Raymond S. Antiola, and Wilfredo E. Pollarco are full‑time professors of the University of Santo Tomas (UST) and members of the UST Faculty Union; respondents are UST and several of its administrators. The petition challenges the Court of Appeals’ September 27, 2013 Decision (CA‑G.R. SP No. 128666) affirming the NLRC Special Division’s March 26, 2012 dismissal of petitioners’ labor complaints; the petition asks the Court to reinstate earlier NLRC favorable dispositions to petitioners.Petitioners were hired as probationary faculty in 2004–2005 under appointment letters stating they were probationary and required to obtain the requisite graduate degree within the probationary period. The parties’ 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) contained Article XV, Section 1, which provided that a teaching faculty member who rendered six consecutive semesters of satisfactory full‑time service would acquire tenure (with a proviso on master’s degree completion). Petitioners did not complete their master’s degrees within the prescribed period but continued teaching; on March 3, 2010, CHED issued a memorandum directing strict implementation of minimum faculty qualifications (CHED Memorandum Order No. 40‑08).
Acting on CHED’s directive, UST required affected faculty to file written appeals if they were due for thesis defense; petitioners did not file appeals, believing they had already acquired tenure under the CBA. On June 11, 2010 UST did not renew their probationary appointments, citing failure to obtain a master’s degree. Petitioners filed labor complaints for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and money claims.
Before the Labor Arbiter, petitioners prevailed: on March 17, 2011 the Labor Arbiter declared respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice and awarded monetary relief. The NLRC initially affirmed on August 10, 2011, but a reconstituted Special Division on March 26, 2012 set aside those rulings and dismissed petitioners’ complaints, holding CHED Memorandum Order No. 40‑08 superseded the CBA provision. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration to the Special Division prompted reassignment to the NLRC Second Division, which on October 30, 2012 reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision; the NLRC denied reconsideration on January 22, 2013.
Respondents sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals, which on September 27, 2013 granted their petition and held petitioners’ non‑renewal valid because the requirement of a master’s degree (found in DECS Order No. 92, Series of 1992, and carried into CHED Memorandum Order No. 40‑08) is a legal prescription that prevails over any contrary CBA term; the...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioners acquire tenure under the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement such that UST’s non‑renewal of their appointments constituted illegal dismissal?
- Does CHED Memorandum Order No. 40‑08 (and the earlier DECS Order 92, Series of 1992) supersede or render void the CBA provision on tenure by default?
- Can petitioners invoke estoppel, waiver, or the doctrine of bad faith to avoid the effect of administrative regulations requiring a master’s degree, and...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)