Title
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila vs. Civil Service Commission
Case
G.R. No. 107590
Decision Date
Feb 21, 1995
PLM terminated 16 temporary faculty members allegedly due to union activities. CSC ruled it as illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice, upheld by the Supreme Court, affirming employees' right to self-organization over management prerogative.
civil service commission
illegal dismissal
unfair labor practice

Case Summary (G.R. No. 107590)

Complaint Before the PSLMC and the Disputed Non-Renewals

The private respondents, through PLMFO, filed with the CSC on 29 May 1990 a verified complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice against PLM and its officers. In a letter-comment dated 13 July 1990, PLM denied any unfair labor practice or illegal dismissal, and asserted (1) the temporary nature of the instructors’ contracts and (2) reasons justifying non-renewal.

Because of the allegations involving unfair labor practice in the public sector, the CSC referred the case to the PSLMC. In PSLMC Case No. 00-06-91, a deputized hearing officer, Med-Arbiter Hope Ruiz-Valenzuela of the Bureau of Labor Relations of the Department of Labor and Employment, heard the matter after due notice.

PSLMC Findings: Unfair Labor Practice and the Order of Reinstatement

During the PSLMC proceedings, PLM relied mainly on the temporary nature of the instructors’ employment contracts. In a Resolution dated 16 December 1991, the PSLMC found PLM guilty of unfair labor practice and ruled that the private respondents “should be reinstated.” The resolution’s dispositive portion declared that PLM Management committed Unfair Labor Practice when it terminated the services of the complainants, and ordered the forwarding of the resolution to the CSC for appropriate action. PLM’s request for reconsideration was denied in a PSLMC Order dated 30 April 1992, after which the PSLMC transmitted the matter to the CSC.

Prior Judicial Proceedings on Certiorari for the PSLMC Resolution

PLM attempted to nullify the PSLMC rulings by filing with this Court a petition for certiorari entitled Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila vs. Public Sector Labor-Management Council, et al. docketed as G.R. No. 105157 on 15 May 1992. The Court dismissed the petition in a Minute Resolution dated 27 May 1992 for failure to submit the certification required under Circular 28-91 on forum-shopping. PLM’s motion for reconsideration was denied with finality. The resolution became final and executory on 30 July 1992 and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment.

Action by the CSC and the Petitioner’s Arguments on Due Process and Jurisdiction

In the meantime, the CSC issued Resolution No. 92-814 dated 25 June 1992, sustaining the PSLMC findings and directing reinstatement with back salaries. The CSC resolved that the termination of all sixteen named instructors was illegal and ordered reinstatement to their former or equivalent positions, with payment of back salaries and other benefits from the time of illegal termination until actual reinstatement. PLM moved for reconsideration, but the CSC denied the motion in Resolution No. 92-1573 dated 20 October 1992. The CSC held that the PSLMC’s factual findings merited respect and that it was not necessary for it to conduct an additional hearing.

PLM then filed the present petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (the decision notes that petitioner had mistakenly referred to Rule 45) asserting, in substance, that: first, the CSC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction and denial of due process when it adopted the PSLMC’s findings and resolutions without affording PLM an opportunity to be heard; second, the CSC effectively denied PLM an opportunity to present evidence to substantiate its defenses; and third, reinstatement and payment of backwages were improper because the instructors’ temporary contracts had already expired.

Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute

On 11 May 1993, PLM moved for a writ of preliminary injunction, and on 18 May 1993 the Court issued a temporary restraining order ordering the CSC “to cease and desist from executing” CSC’s assailed resolutions No. 92-814 and No. 92-1573.

After respondents’ comment was received, the Court gave due course in a resolution dated 17 August 1993 and ordered memoranda. The Solicitor General took an adverse position to CSC and urged that CSC should not have ruled on illegal dismissal without affording PLM an opportunity to be heard anew. Although CSC indicated it would file its own comment, it failed to do so within the period. The Court dispensed with the comment and required CSC to file a memorandum.

The Court later dismissed the petition on 20 January 1994 for failure to prosecute, grounded on PLM’s failure to file its memorandum as well and because of the “evident lack of interest of the parties” to pursue the case. Upon PLM’s motion for reconsideration, the Court reinstated the petition on 24 February 1994.

The Parties’ Core Positions Before the Court

PLM contended that although the CSC and the PSLMC both exercise quasi-judicial functions, they do so on different issues and with different subject matter. PLM insisted that the PSLMC had jurisdiction only over the unfair labor practice aspect of the complaint. PLM argued that the CSC, by adopting the PSLMC’s finding of unfair labor practice and using it to resolve illegal dismissal and order reinstatement without conducting further proceedings to allow PLM to present evidence, effectively denied PLM due process.

The decision stressed, however, that PLM’s jurisdictional premise on the unfair labor practice was not disputed. The PSLMC held the proceedings in accordance with its mandate, including the non-adversarial procedure for the council under the “Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Self Organization,” particularly Sec. 4, which contemplates position papers and evidence within a specified period, and Sec. 5, which makes the council’s decision final.

Finality of the Unfair Labor Practice Ruling and Its Binding Effect

The Court treated the PSLMC’s finding regarding unfair labor practice as no longer open for re-examination before the CSC or again on review. It relied on the earlier final and executory disposition in G.R. No. 105157, which had already become a fait accompli. Consequently, when the case was referred to the CSC for “appropriate action,” the CSC’s task necessarily included taking the steps required to implement the unfair labor practice resolution, particularly reinstatement of employees found to have been illegally terminated for union-related reasons.

What the PSLMC Found About Union Motivation and the Credibility of PLM’s Claims

In explaining its conclusion, the PSLMC described the private respondents as union founders and active officers in PLMFO and noted that at the time of the complainants’ separation, PLMFO had just obtained its public sector union registration. It stated that all sixteen had temporary contracts renewed yearly, and that nearly half of the faculty were temporary appointees, among whom the complainants had varying periods of service.

The PSLMC further observed that the faculty had longstanding grievances against PLM management and that, after securing union registration, the faculty began asserting rights. According to the PSLMC’s assessment of the evidence, PLM’s decision to terminate the complainants was not a neutral application of the management prerogative to decline renewal of temporary appointments. While it acknowledged the general principle that temporary employees may not expect renewal as a matter of right, the PSLMC held that where termination is alleged to hinder unionism and the allegation is supported by evidence, the management’s motives require examination and rebuttal by PLM.

The PSLMC found PLM’s rebuttal attempts weak. It observed that despite repeated opportunities, PLM failed to produce performance evaluation results that it claimed were the basis of non-renewal. It also noted the PSLMC’s deductions regarding management’s lack of enthusiasm for faculty participation and its failure to respond adequately to faculty issues. The PSLMC characterized PLM’s defenses as abandoned when it was directed to substantiate charges and as serving to confuse or mislead regarding the true motivation for separation.

The PSLMC specifically addressed several asserted grounds of non-renewal raised by PLM in its defense. It found that in the cases of Zelda Reyes, Manalo Hina, and Nemencio Cabatuando, the claimed poor performance evaluation scores were contradicted by the actual evaluation records showing “grades near perfect.” It also held that PLM failed to comply with orders to produce evaluation forms, enabling an inference that such evidence would be detrimental to its case. As to Roberto Amores, the PSLMC found PLM’s “failure to complete MA” rationale spurious in light of his years of service and relevant board treatment of his interim appointment status. Concerning Virgilio Zamora, the PSLMC considered PLM’s objection premature under the interim appointment concept that allowed time to complete the master’s degree within the prescribed period.

For Anita Leyson, the PSLMC evaluated the allegation of enrollment in another law school. It noted the existence of a letter dated January 7, 1989 from Leyson to the university requesting permission to continue studies, and it reasoned that while PLM challenged the complainant to show proof of granted permission, PLM also could not show any document expressly prohibiting her enrollment. It treated PLM’s non-response as consent and added that penalizing further studies, absent a clear lawful prohibition, was oppressive, particularly given Leyson’s excellent performance ratings.

These findings led the PSLMC to conclude that the charges were false or untenable and that the circumstances showed the charges were created to mask management’s real intent to bust the union.

The Court’s Resolution on Due Process and the Interlinked Nature of Illegal Dismissal and Unfair Labor Practice

On the due process issue, the Court rejected PLM’s claim

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms