G.R. No. 89920 - University of Sto. Tomas vs. National Labor Relations Commission

On June 19, 1989, the University of Santo Tomas (UST), through its Board of Trustees, terminated the employment of 16 faculty union officers and directors of the UST Faculty Union.
Termination was based on allegations that the union officials committed grave misconduct, including libelous and defamatory attacks against the Father Rector in Strike Bulletin No. 5 (dated August 4, 1987).

Following the dismissals, several faculty members staged mass leaves of absence starting June 28, 1989, which led to disruption of classes in all levels of the University.
The disruptions forced the UST Faculty Union to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice on July 5, 1989 with the Department of Labor and Employment.

On July 7, 1989, the labor arbiter, recognizing a serious labor dispute likely to escalate into a strike, certified the case to Secretary Franklin Drilon for possible suspension of the termination effects.
Secretary Drilon issued an order (dated July 11, 1989) temporarily suspending the effects of the termination and directing management to readmit the dismissed faculty members to work under the same terms and conditions as before the strike.
Specific directives included:

On July 12, 1989, UST filed a motion for reconsideration urging the Secretary either to assume jurisdiction or to certify the case to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, advocating against suspending the termination effects.
Acting on the motion, on July 18, 1989, Secretary Drilon modified his previous order, certifying the labor dispute to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, and ordering the university to readmit all faculty (including union officials) under the pre-dispute terms and conditions.
On July 27, 1989, a further order was issued affirming the readmission directive and ordering the NLRC to immediately enforce its implementation without entertaining further motions.

The NLRC, having called the parties for a conference on August 11, 1989, eventually issued a resolution on September 6, 1989.
The NLRC resolution:

Directed UST to reinstate or readmit the dismissed faculty either with actual teaching assignments or by payroll reinstatement.
Specified full backwages for the affected faculty starting from July 13, 1989, until actual reinstatement or payroll reinstatement.
Imposed that payroll reinstatement was temporary, limited to the first semester of 1989, with actual teaching loads to be restored in the next semester.
Prohibited granting “substantially equivalent academic assignments” as this deviated from a proper readmission under the full terms as ordered by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

Subsequent motions were filed by the union and opposition by UST, resulting in urgent relief by the Court issuing a temporary restraining order on October 25, 1989 against the enforcement of the NLRC resolution.

Alleging that the NLRC abused its discretion by ordering alternative remedial measures (actual reinstatement vs. payroll reinstatement or substantially equivalent academic assignments) instead of complying with the Secretary’s clear directive.
Contending that awarding backwages from July 13, 1989, was erroneous due to a supposed stay on the Secretary’s order via the motion for reconsideration.
Asserting that granting substantially equivalent academic assignments did not comply in good faith with the Secretary’s return-to-work order.
Opposing the NLRC’s interference with the employer’s prerogative in managing its operations.

UST had actually reinstated some faculty members with full teaching assignments while assigning “substantially equivalent academic assignments” to others:

Six faculty members were reinstated with their regular teaching loads.
Two faculty members received only partial teaching assignments (with the remainder administered as equivalent assignments).
Seven faculty members were given substantially equivalent academic assignments because their original teaching loads had already been reassigned to new faculty.
One faculty member, Rene Sison, had been AWOL.

UST argued that the grant of substantially equivalent academic assignments complied with valid operational reasons:

Reinstate faculty in positions that would not disturb existing contracts with replacement faculty.
Avoid disruption of academic order during the close of the semester.
Implement a mere payroll reinstatement only when actual teaching duties could not be resumed.

The union, in opposition, maintained that such assignments degraded the union leaders and did not constitute the proper reinstatement as they fell short of restoring actual teaching duties, to which the dismissed faculty were entitled under the Secretary’s order.

Whether, pending the resolution of the labor dispute by the NLRC, a university may comply with a return-to-work or readmission order by granting substantially equivalent academic assignments in lieu of actual reinstatement to regular teaching loads.

Issue regarding the proper interpretation of “under the same terms and conditions prevailing” in the Secretary’s return-to-work order.
Whether offering such alternative assignments constitutes a valid or a contrived remedy under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.

Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by awarding alternative remedies such as payroll reinstatement and granting substantially equivalent academic assignments instead of enforcing actual reinstatement.

If the NLRC’s modified resolution deviates from the Secretary’s order by providing substitute remedies, does it amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction?
Whether the awarding of backwages from the date the faculty presented themselves for reinstatement remains proper despite the pending motion for reconsideration.

The extent of the university’s management prerogative in determining work assignments versus its obligation to comply with mandated return-to-work orders during a labor dispute affecting an industry of national interest.

Whether the NLRC’s order improperly substituted its judgment for that of the petitioner in its employment practices.
If the temporary measures imposed (such as payroll reinstatement and equivalent assignments) effectively impinge on the university’s constitutional and operational prerogatives as an employer.