Labor_FEU v CIR

FEU V CIR (Court of Industrial Relations) G.R. No. L-1762 !u"ust #1$ 1%62 F!C&' 1. Tomas N. Aguirre Aguirre is a full time professor (with xed compensation) compensation) of FEU FEU since 1!". 1!". #. $e %oined %oined the &A'U &A'U& & a legitimate legitimate laor laor organi*a organi*ation tion in +une 1,-. 1,-. -. n +ul/ +ul/ or Augu August st 1,1,- Agui Aguirr rre e ega egan n to camp campai aign gn and and recru recruit it mem memer ers s for for the the &A'U& A'U& he approached all of the facult/ memers of the respondent0s nstitute of Education and some from the Arts and ciences 2usiness Administration and Finance ut most of them were afraid of an/ retaliation retaliation that the respondent ma/ ma3e ecause of their %oining the union. !. n +une 1,! Aguirre was no longer longer gi4en an assignment assignment ecause ecause of his union union acti4ities acti4ities and further a4ers that after recruiting some memers his classication as full time instructor changed to reser4ed full time instructor and his teaching load was decreased to two hours a da/ ,. 5n the other other hand hand FEU witness witnessed ed / the dean dean 6u* A. 7afra claims claims that that Aguirr Aguirre e was not gi4en assignment ecause of decreased enrollment in the nstitute of Education was going down steadil/ in the Filipino 6anguage class where Aguirre was teaching. 8. 9espite 9espite 7afra:s 7afra:s admission admission that in the assignment assignment of su%ects su%ects to facult/ memers memers length length of ser4ice ser4ice experience experience preparation and professional professional growth as well as student;facult/ relation were ta3en into considera consideration tion part time professors professors as &angan &anganian ian . This e4entua e4entualit/ lit/ was apparentl/ apparentl/ the fear of most of the facult/ facult/ memers memers who refused refused to %oin the &A'U& when Aguirre as3ed them to ecome memers. ". Aguirr Aguirre e rought rought charge charge against against the respon responden dentt efore efore the e*art+ent of Edu,ation  when his teaching load was reduced? - 5n No4emer  1,! the ire,tor of riate ',/ools  directed the respondent to pay  the salary diferential which Aguirre ail to earn rom December 1, 1953 to 1954 and to gie  Aguirre assignment assignment in the college college department during the the !rst semester o the the current school  year under the same same condition beore his teaching load was reduced ; 5n +une ## 1,, 1,, the 'e,retar0 of Edu,ation  a"rmed the decision of the 9irector of  &ri4ate chools and ; 5n 9ece 9ecem mer er " 1,8 1,8 the the Ee,utie Ee,utie 'e,retar0 'e,retar0 / authorit/ of the &resident of the &hilippines a"rmed the decision of the 9irector of &ri4ate chool as well as the ecretar/ of  Education0s decision pre4iousl/ mentioned.

. FEU: FEU:s s cont conten enti tion on?? 5rdinaril/ ac3 wages are granted whene4er there is a nding of a commission of unfair laor practices# $he permanent employment obtained by Aguirre in the %entral &an' o the (hilippines as well we ll as in the (hilip (hilippin pine e %ol %olleg lege e o %ommerce %ommerce is substantial   and under the concept of the ndustrial ndustrial &eace &eace Act Act his employment elsewhere in a permanent capacity is su"cient to bar his reinstatement to his ormer position in the respondent# @hile it ma/ e true that his earnings with the 'entral 2an3 ma/ e less than that he was recei4ing from the Far Eastern Uni4ersit/ /et his status with the 'entral 2an3 is permanent and he could teach as a sideline in an/ school as in fact he is connected with the &hilippine 'ollege of 'ommerce a fact that could not happen if he were still connected with the Far Eastern Uni4ersit/. 1. &A'U& A'U& and Aguirr Aguirre e with the Acting Acting &rosec &rosecuto utorr of the 'ourt 'ourt of ndustri ndustrial al =e =elati lations ons led a

complaint for unfair laor practice against the Uni4ersit/. 11. =espondent mo4ed to dismiss 1#. Aguirre led a motion to withdraw said complaint upon the ground that there was a decision of  the 9irector of &ri4ate chools ordering his reinstatement and the pa/ment of ac3 wages as well as wage diBerential and that the Uni4ersit/ was Cusing the pendenc/C of the case Cas a ground for not compl/ing with the said decisionC. 1-. 5n  1,!. 18. 2oth were denied / the 'ourt on +une #- 1,8.

1>. 6ater on the Uni4ersit/ led its answer and the issue ha4ing een %oined. 1". ud"e !rsenio L. 3artine4 of said 'ourt rendered the aforementioned decision nding the Uni4ersit/ guilty o unair labor practice and sentencing said institution to pay to Aguirre the salary diferential due him from 9ecemer 1 1,- to
of &!,. a month as well as ac3 wages at the same rate from +une 1 1,! to No4emer 1> 1,, after deducting therefrom the compensation paid to him / the &hilippine 'ollege of  'ommerce from +une 1 1,, to No4emer 1> 1,, as well as to cease and desist from further committing unfair laor practices. 5oeer said +udge did not order the reinstatement of Aguirre in the )niersity  upon the ground that his employment in the %entral &an' o the (hilippines, is, within the puriew o the *ndustrial (eace Act, a substantial e+uialent o his position as ull time instructor in said )niersity . 1. 'omplainant Aguirre led a motion for reconsideration. #. (Appealed decision?) ! +aorit0 of t/e ud"es of said Court sittin" en banc a8r+ed  the decision of +udge
RULING? N9.  The emplo/ment of Aguirre in the 'entral 2an3 and his teaching load in the &hilippine 'ollege of  'ommerce are N5T sustantiall/ eDui4alent to his former position in the Uni4ersit/.

Although
I'9'I&I9N? @$E=EF5=E the resolution appealed from is here/ armed with costs against petitioner. t is so ordered.

  F   

U

6

6

T

E

G

T

=epulic of the &hilippines 'URE3E C9UR&
!u"ust #1$ 1%62

F!R E!'&ERN UNIVER'I&=$ petitioner 4s. &5E C9UR& 9F INU'&RI!L REL!&I9N'$ 5ILIINE !''9CI!&I9N 9F C9LLEGE' !N UNIVER'I&= R9FE''9R' (!CU) and &93!' N. !GUIRRE$  respondents.

%rispin D# &aias . Associates or petitioner# /ariano &# $uason or respondent %ourt o *ndustrial 0elations# ulogio 0# 2erum or the other respondents# C9NCECI9N$ J.

Appeal / certiorari ta3en / the Far Eastern Uni4ersit/ hereafter referred to as the Uni4ersit/ from resolution of the 'ourt of ndustrial =elations sitting en banc modif/ing a decision of one of the +udges of  said 'ourt. The main facts are set forth in said decision from which we Duote? From the e4idence on record it appears that Tomas N. Aguirre ecame a facult/ memer of the respondent in 1!". $e was rst emplo/ed at the rate of &8. per hour and then was contracted to teach in the 2o/s0 $igh chool 9epartment in the same uni4ersit/ at the rate of &-. per class earning an a4erage of &,. to &8. a month. Aguirre %oined the &A'U& a legitimate laor organi*ation in +une 1,-. n +ul/ or August 1,- upon orders of the president of the &A'U& +ose <. $ernande* Aguirre egan to campaign and recruit memers for the &A'U&. As a result of his eBorts in campaigning for memership he was ale to inHuence se4en memers from the facult/ of 

the uni4ersit/ (Exhiits C2C C2;1C to C2;8C inclusi4e). n his campaign for memership he approached practicall/ all of the facult/ memers of the respondent0s nstitute of Education and some from the Arts and ciences 2usiness Administration and Finance ut most of them were afraid to %oin the union. The/ were afraid of an/ retaliation that the respondent ma/ ma3e ecause of their %oining the union. n the /ear 1,- respondent formed a committee to classif/ all facult/ memers and determine the rates of their ac3pa/ and assignments. Ninet/;six of the more than four hundred facult/ memers were classied as full time instructors. Aguirre was one of those who was classied / the said committee as full time instructor in the respondent0s nstitute of Education with a xed compensation of &!,. a month eBecti4e eptemer 1 1,-. 9uring the months of 9ecemer 1,- up to
cannot e ta3en into consideration after a careful examination of the alance sheet sumitted / the respondent in relation to its motion to dismiss. aid alance sheet shows that in the 1,#;1,scal /ear respondent made a net prot of &1,"-,.#, and in 1,-;1,! &#,"81." while in 1,!;1,, a net prot of &>>-.> and in 1,,;1,8 &>88."". The gures show that respondent from 1,# to 1,8 has een steadil/ increasing its income until in 1,";1, when it made net income of &1,11#-.!#. And e4en on the assumption the enrollment in the department where Aguirre was teaching reduced still the 'ourt cannot 4alidl/ reconcile the fact that Aguirre who was a full time professor recei4ing a xed monthl/ salar/ could not an/ further e gi4en assignment the time professors and whose length of ser4ice in the uni4ersit/ cannot compare with that of Aguirre were gi4en assignment and suBered no reeducating in salar/. Undoutedl/ this 'ourt cannot ut conclude that when the respondent changed status of Aguirre from a full time professor at &!,. a month to that of a reser4ed full time professor with a teaching load of two hours and nall/ got no assignments in +une 18! it was moti4ated other than decreased enrollment especiall/ in the case of the e4idence that Aguirre campaigned for union memership among the professors instructors and teachers of the respondent and the further fact that other full time instructors similarl/ situated ut are not union memers did not suBer the same facts of  arupt reduction in their teaching load and salar/. As indicated Aguirre was later depri4ed of an/ teaching load in the nstitute of Education. E4en part time professors as &anganian  1,, he egan wor3ing as a permanent emplo/ee in the 'entral 2an3 of the &hilippines with a compensation of &-. per annum. 5n eptemer , 1,8 his salar/ was raised to &-8. per annum. The permanent emplo/ment otained / Aguirre in the 'entral 2an3 of the &hilippines as well as in the &hilippine 'ollege of 'ommerce is sustantial and under the concept of the ndustrial &eace Act his emplo/ment elsewhere in a permanent capacit/ is sucient to ar his reinstatement to his former position in the respondent. @hile it ma/ e true that his earnings with the 'entral 2an3 ma/ e less than that he was recei4ing from the Far Eastern Uni4ersit/ /et his status with the 'entral 2an3 is permanent and he could teach as a sideline in an/ school as in fact he is connected with the &hilippine 'ollege of 'ommerce a fact that could not happen if he were still connected with the Far Eastern Uni4ersit/. At the instance of the &hilippine Association of 'olleges and Uni4ersit/ &rofessors hereafter referred to as the &A'U& andLor Tomas N. Aguirre on eptemer #" 1,! an Acting &rosecutor of the 'ourt of ndustrial =elations led a complaint for unfair laor practice against the Uni4ersit/ which later mo4ed on No4emer 1> 1,! to dismiss the complaint. useDuentl/ or on Feruar/ ! 1,, the complainant andLor the oBended part/ Tomas N. Aguirre led a motion to withdraw said complaint upon the ground that there was a decision of the 9irector of &ri4ate chools ordering his reinstatement and the pa/ment of ac3 wages as well as wage diBerential and that the Uni4ersit/ was Cusing the pendenc/C of the case Cas a ground for not compl/ing with the said decisionC. Acting upon this latter motion on  1,! oth of which were denied / the 'ourt on +une #- 1,8. 6ater on the Uni4ersit/ led its answer and the issue ha4ing een %oined the case was tried after which +udge Arsenio 6.  1,, after deducting therefrom the compensation paid to him / the &hilippine 'ollege of 'ommerce from +une 1 1,, to No4emer 1> 1,, as well as to cease and desist from further committing unfair laor practices. $owe4er said +udge did not order the reinstatement of  Aguirre in the Uni4ersit/ upon the ground that his emplo/ment in the 'entral 2an3 of the &hilippines is

within the pur4iew of the ndustrial &eace Act a sustantial eDui4alent of his position as full time instructor in said Uni4ersit/. 5n motion for reconsideration led / the complainant a ma%orit/ of the %udges of said 'ourt sitting en banc armed the decision of +udge # N6=2 1! 8I 11 fed. (#d) >I &ules3i eneer 'orn. (1-") 1 N6=2 1-8I Ouidnic3 9/e @or3s nc. (1->) # N6=2 8-P. Although