Title
Supreme Court
University of San Agustin Employees' Union-FFW vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 169632
Decision Date
Mar 28, 2006
A union's strike was declared illegal after defying a labor order, resulting in officers losing employment; economic disputes were referred to arbitration per CBA.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 169632)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • The parties involved are the University of San Agustin, a non-stock, non-profit educational institution offering basic and higher education, and the University of San Agustin Employees’ Union-FFW (USAEU-FFW) along with its individual officers.
    • The Union is the duly recognized collective bargaining unit representing the teaching and non-teaching rank-and-file personnel of the University.
  • The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and Its Provisions
    • On July 27, 2000, the University and the Union entered into a 5-year CBA which, among other provisions, outlined economic matters for a three-year period (up to SY 2000-2003).
    • The CBA included:
      • A provision for salary increases for School Years 2000-2003 either as a lump sum or as a percentage of the tuition incremental proceeds (TIP).
      • A “no strike, no lockout” clause that prohibited either party from engaging in strike or lockout actions during the term of the agreement.
      • A grievance machinery procedure to resolve management-labor disputes, with an option for voluntary arbitration should internal resolution fail.
  • Negotiations and Deadlock Over Economic Issues
    • The parties commenced negotiations for the economic provisions for SY 2003-2004 and SY 2004-2005, particularly concerning the computation of the TIP, but failed to reach an agreement.
    • Unable to resolve the impasse on the computation of the TIP (the seventy percent share for salary and other benefits), the Union declared a bargaining deadlock.
    • In response, the Union filed a Notice of Strike before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), while the University sought to invoke the “no strike, no lockout” provision by moving to strike out the notice and refer the dispute to voluntary arbitration.
  • Intervention by the NCMB and the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE)
    • The NCMB’s preventive mediation did not resolve the impasse, and the parties eventually made a joint request for the SOLE to assume jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
    • On September 18, 2003, the SOLE issued an Assumption of Jurisdiction Order (AJO) under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, enjoining any strike or lockout and directing the parties to submit their position papers and evidence.
  • The Strike and the Service of the AJO
    • On September 19, 2003, during the early stages of the strike, law enforcement officers (sheriffs) attempted to serve the AJO on Union representatives.
      • Merlyn Jara, the Union’s vice president, refused to acknowledge or receive the AJO, citing the delegation of authority within the Union as per Board Resolution No. 3 which reserved acceptance of documents for the union president only.
      • Despite her refusal, the AJO was considered served when copies were posted at designated locations and later formally served upon the University.
    • The Union persisted with the strike despite the AJO which mandated that all striking employees immediately return to work.
  • Subsequent Proceedings and Decisions
    • The University filed a petition before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) to declare the strike illegal and to maintain that union officers had lost their employment status.
      • The case was docketed as NLRC SRAB Case No. 06-09-50370-03 and later consolidated with SOLE’s case.
    • On April 6, 2004, SOLE rendered a Decision dismissing the petition to declare the strike illegal, emphasizing a resolution that directed the parties to execute a memorandum of agreement regarding the economic issues, without affecting the employment status of the union officers.
    • The University, unsatisfied with the SOLE’s decision, elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA) through CA-G.R. SP No. 85317.
    • On March 4, 2005, the CA partially granted the University’s petition:
      • It affirmed the economic resolution of the SOLE with respect to the computation of the TIP.
      • It reversed SOLE’s ruling on the strike, declaring the strike illegal and deeming union officers to have lost their employment status.
    • Following further motions for reconsideration, on August 23, 2005, the CA issued a Partially Amended Decision:
      • The CA maintained that the Union’s strike on September 19, 2003 was illegal.
      • It affirmed that the union officers were deemed to have lost their employment status.
      • It directed the parties to resolve the economic issues through voluntary arbitration, citing the grievance machinery stipulated in the CBA.
    • On April 7, 2005, subsequent actions included:
      • The University served termination notices to the union officers.
      • The Union filed another notice of strike, this time on grounds of alleged union busting.
    • The petition for review on certiorari was ultimately raised by the Union, challenging both the CA’s declaration of illegality of the strike and the loss of employment status of its officers, as well as the referral of economic issues to voluntary arbitration.

Issues:

  • Legality of the Strike and Loss of Employment Status
    • Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion by declaring the strike held on September 19, 2003, illegal based on the Union’s failure to immediately return to work upon service of the AJO.
    • Whether the CA erred in deeming that the union officers lost their employment status as a consequence of their participation in the strike.
  • Referral to Voluntary Arbitration of Economic Issues
    • Whether the CA improperly directed the parties to refer the economic issues arising from the implementation of the CBA (particularly the computation of the TIP and other salary benefit matters) to voluntary arbitration, effectively bypassing the SOLE’s jurisdiction over these issues.
    • Whether, by referring the matter to arbitration, the CA undermined the comprehensive authority of the SOLE under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code regarding labor disputes.
  • Adherence to the Grievance Machinery and "No Strike, No Lockout" Clause
    • Whether the Union’s action in proceeding with a strike circumvented the agreed grievance machinery in the CBA, which was designed to resolve such economic disputes, and the accompanying no strike, no lockout provision.
    • Whether the NCMB’s failure to resolve the University’s motion to strike out the Notice of Strike contributed to the subsequent illegal strike and loss of employment status implications.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms