Case Digest (G.R. No. 182957)
Facts:
St. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela Faculty Association (SJAVFA)-FUR Chapter-TUCP v. St. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela and Damaso D. Lopez, G.R. No. 182957, June 13, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner, SJAVFA-FUR Chapter-TUCP, filed this Rule 45 petition seeking review of the Court of Appeals Decision dated January 11, 2008 and Resolution dated May 20, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP No. 81647, which deleted the reinstatement and award of backwages portions of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) Decision dated September 9, 2003. The underlying labor dispute began with a notice of strike alleging illegal termination and union busting by respondent St. Joseph Academy of Valenzuela (SJAV). The parties agreed to submit the controversy for voluntary arbitration and the SOLE assumed jurisdiction.
Originally nineteen (19) union members were affected. Four (4) had already passed the teachers’ licensure examination (Reshiel R. Isagan; Mary Grace C. Dimaunahan; Novelyn I. Puyot; Elizabeth O. Nicol) and the SOLE ordered their reinstatement with full backwages until actual reinstatement. The remaining fifteen (15) were non-licensee teachers. For those fifteen the SOLE ordered reinstatement only for those who had submitted a valid temporary or special permit, with full backwages until actual reinstatement, but limited their service to the remaining validity period of the permit.
On appeal the Court of Appeals deleted the SOLE’s reinstatement and backwages award as to the non-licensees, holding reinstatement was no longer possible because assignment of para-teachers is the prerogative of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) under Section 26 of R.A. No. 7836, SJAV could not be deprived of choosing its teachers and the positions had already been filled, and the non-licensees were not regular employees so no illegal dismissal was shown. The petitioner conceded that the non-licensees’ temporary/special permits had already expired and that reinstatement was impossible, but sought restoration of backwages and an award of separation pay (or financial assistance) on equitable and compassionate grounds, stressing their years of service and contribution to the school. Two non-licensees (Eliseef and Musa) had pursued separation pay before the NLRC/Labor Arbiter; they were excluded from the relief sought here. Respondent SJAV maintained that because the non-licensees could not be regularized absent licensure, no illegal dismissal occurred and therefore reinstatement/backwages were improper.
...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit an error in deleting the reinstatement and backwages portions of the SOLE Decision?
- Are the non-licensee teachers entitled to reinstatement and backwages under Article 279 of the Labor Code and Section 26 of R.A. No. 7836?
- If reinstatement is impossible, may the Court award separation pay or financial assistance as equita...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)