Case Digest (G.R. No. 169632)
Facts:
University of San Agustin Employees' Union-FFW, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 169632, March 28, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Garcia, J., writing for the Court.The dispute arose between petitioner University of San Agustin Employees' Union-FFW (the Union) and respondent University of San Agustin over the economic provisions of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the Union's subsequent strikes. The parties had a five-year CBA (entered July 27, 2000) that included a three-year economic schedule (school years 2000–2003), a “no strike, no lockout” clause, and a grievance machinery culminating in voluntary arbitration. Negotiations for the remaining two school years (2003–2005) deadlocked over the computation of the tuition incremental proceeds (TIP) share.
While preventive mediation before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) was pending, the Union declared a bargaining deadlock, filed a notice of strike and proceeded to strike on September 19, 2003. The parties jointly requested the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) to assume jurisdiction; the SOLE issued an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order (AJO) dated September 18, 2003 (OS-AJ-0032-2003) enjoining strikes/lockouts and directing parties to submit position papers.
On the morning of September 19, 2003, DOLE sheriffs attempted to serve the AJO on Union officers; the sheriffs reported that certain officers (and Union counsel) refused personal receipt, citing a Union board resolution that only the president could accept the AJO. The sheriffs posted copies at the university gates and offices at approximately 8:45 a.m., and served the University at 9:20 a.m.; the Union president accepted the AJO only at about 5:25 p.m. despite the strike already underway. Notwithstanding the posting, the Union continued the strike.
The University filed a Petition to Declare Strike Illegal and Loss of Employment Status at the NLRC (later consolidated with the SOLE docket). On April 6, 2004, the SOLE dismissed the petition and held the strike not illegal, finding no basis to declare loss of employment. The University sought certiorari relief in the Court of Appeals (CA). On March 4, 2005 the CA partially granted the petition, declaring the September 19, 2003 strike illegal and ruling that union officers were deemed to have lost their employment, while affirming the SOLE on the economic computations.
After motions for reconsideration, the CA issued a Partially Amended Decision on August 23, 2005 that (a) affirmed its conclusion that the strike was illegal and officers had lost employment; but (b) set aside the SOLE's dispositions on the economic issues and directed the parties to resort to voluntary arbitration under the CBA. The Union and the di...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in declaring the September 19, 2003 strike illegal and in deeming the union officers to have lost their employment status where the AJO was allegedly not effectively served and where there is an asserted practice that the SOLE gives striking employees twenty-four hours to return to work?
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in directing the parties to refer the economic issues of the labor dispute to voluntary arbitration despite the SOLE's authority to assume jurisdictio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)