Title
Supreme Court
Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Association of Employees and Faculty of Letran
Case
G.R. No. 141471
Decision Date
Sep 18, 2000
Letran found guilty of unfair labor practice for refusing to bargain in good faith and dismissing union president Eleonor Ambas, violating labor rights and union self-organization.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 141471)

Petitioner

An academic institution responsible for engaging in collective bargaining with its accredited union and adhering to labor laws governing good-faith negotiations.

Respondents

AEFL, representing Letran’s nonacademic and academic staff; Eleonor Ambas, acting as union president during the 1996 renegotiation and alleged dismissal target.

Key Dates

• December 1992 – Initial union approach for mid-term CBA renegotiation.
• January 1996 – First union notice of strike on grounds of bargaining refusal and non-compliance with NLRC order.
• February 7, 1996 – Union submits CBA proposals; petitioner acknowledges receipt on February 13.
• February 15, 1996 – Union president’s work schedule unilaterally changed; grievance request denied.
• March 13, 1996 – Second strike notice filed, adding charge of Ambos’s dismissal.
• June 18, 1996 – Actual strike begins after breakdown of negotiations.
• July 2, 1996 – Secretary of Labor directs all strikers’ immediate return and reinstatement.
• December 2, 1996 – Secretary’s Order finds petitioner guilty of two counts of unfair labor practice; orders Ambas’s reinstatement with backwages.
• August 9, 1999 – Court of Appeals affirms Secretary’s Order.
• September 18, 2000 – Supreme Court issues final decision under the 1987 Constitution.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3 – Right of workers to self-organization and collective bargaining.
• Labor Code of the Philippines:
 – Art. 248 – Prohibited employer practices interfering with self-organization.
 – Art. 250(a) – Procedure in collective bargaining, including ten-day reply requirement.
 – Art. 252 – Duty to bargain collectively in good faith.
• Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book V, Rule XI, Section 3 – Contract Bar Rule (60-day freedom period).

Factual Background

Beginning in December 1992, the incumbent union pursued renegotiation of the CBA’s remaining term. In early 1996, amidst protracted talks, AEFL submitted its proposals on February 7; petitioner delayed its response, citing pending Board of Trustees review. Shortly thereafter, petitioner altered Ambas’s work schedule and refused grievance referral. The union served successive strike notices, and on March 29 petitioner dismissed Ambas for alleged insubordination. Negotiations were later suspended on purported grounds of a rival union’s certification petition, and AEFL commenced an actual strike on June 18.

Procedural History

Labor Arbiter favored petitioner, but the NLRC reversed. The Secretary of Labor found unfair labor practice, ordering Ambos’s reinstatement. The CA dismissed petitioner’s petition for certiorari, affirming the Secretary. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

  1. Whether petitioner’s suspension of CBA negotiations and failure to bargain in good faith constitute unfair labor practice.
  2. Whether the dismissal of union president Ambos improperly interfered with employees’ right to self-organization.

Analysis on Duty to Bargain

Under Art. 252 and Art. 250(a) of the Labor Code, both parties must meet promptly and in good faith; the employer must reply within ten calendar days to bargaining proposals. Petitioner’s months-long silence, repeated delays, unilateral schedule change and abrupt suspension of negotiations upon a non-compliant certification petition demonstrate bad-faith bargaining and procedural evasion. The rival union’s petition was filed outside the 60-day freedom period and

...continue reading

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.