Case Digest (G.R. No. 178085-178086)
Facts:
University of the Immaculate Conception v. Office of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. Nos. 178085-86, September 14, 2015, Supreme Court Third Division, Jardeleza, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner University of the Immaculate Conception (UIC) is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution; respondent UIC Teaching and Non-Teaching Employees Union–FFW (Union) is the certified bargaining agent, and twelve rank-and-file employees (the Respondent Employees) figure in the illegal dismissal claim.The labor dispute began in 1994. On June 20, 1994 the Union filed a notice of strike alleging bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice; parties agreed on certain incremental tuition-sharing percentages but disagreed over inclusion/exclusion of certain employees from the bargaining unit. A voluntary arbitration panel (VA Case No. XI-354-02-94) on November 8, 1994 sustained UIC’s claim that several employees were confidential and must be excluded; that decision became final upon denial of reconsideration on February 8, 1995 and subsequent dismissal of the Union’s certiorari petition on June 21, 1995.
On January 20–23, 1995 the Union filed a second notice of strike; on January 23, 1995 the Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the dispute (docketed OS-AJ-003-95), issued a Return-to-Work Order and enjoined hostile acts. Over ensuing years the Secretary issued orders: March 28, 1995 (suspending terminations and ordering reinstatement, later modified to payroll reinstatement), October 8, 1998 (directing execution of a CBA embodying agreed salary increases), and June 20, 2006 / September 18, 2006 (rulings on illegal dismissal and reinstatement/back wages). The parties later executed agreements and a CBA in 2004, and in May–July 2004 the Union sought creation of a tripartite committee to compute net incremental proceeds under Republic Act No. 6728; on July 5, 2004 the DOLE granted the motion and the tripartite committee conducted computations resulting in a September 18, 2006 DOLE Resolution ordering distribution of Php11,070,473.00.
UIC filed two certiorari petitions in the Court of Appeals—CA-G.R. SP No. 01396-MIN (Net Incremental Proceeds Case) and CA-G.R. SP No. 01398-MIN (Illegal Dismissal Case)—which the CA consolidated and denied in a Decision dated April 24, 2007 and denied reconsideration on May 31, 2007. UIC then filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 before this Court, and a Temporary Restraining Order was issued July 9, 2007 restraining enforcement of the CA decision. The issues presented here concern (a) the Secretary’s authority to create the tripartite committee and the correc...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Secretary of Labor and Employment have authority under Article 263(g) of the Labor Code to order the creation of a tripartite committee to compute net incremental proceeds and to direct distribution of the resulting award?
- May the Supreme Court, in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, reweigh factual evidence or disturb the tripartite committee’s computation of net incremental proceeds affirmed by the Secretary and the Court of Appeals?
- Were the dismissals of the Respondent Employees valid for just cause under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code given their status as confidential employees who refused to relinquish union membership?
- If the dismissals were for just cause, did UIC comply with the procedural (two-notice) due process requirement and what remedies, if any, obtain?
- Did Alfredo Olvida engage in unauthori...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)