ManilaSECOND
DIVISION
UNIVERSITY
OF PANGASINAN,
Petitioner,
G. R. No. 109977
September 5, 1997
-versus-
HON.
MA. NIEVES R. CONFESOR,in Her Official Capacity
as Secretary
of Department of
Labor and Employment,
and UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN
FACULTY UNION,
Respondents.
R
E S O L U T I O N
ROMERO, J.:
In this
Petition for Certiorari, the Order of then
Secretary of Labor Ruben Torres dated October 10, 1991 affirming the
monetary
claims awarded to herein private respondent faculty union as well as
the
Resolutions dated February 17, 1992 and April 20, 1993, denying
petitioner's
motions for reconsideration for lack of merit, are assailed for having
been issued with grave abuse of discretion.
On August 7, 1986, the University of
Pangasinan
Faculty Union [Union] presented its demands and grievances to the
University
of Pangasinan [UPang], herein petitioner, with a notice that the Union
will go on strike if said demands are not met within thirty days.
Conciliation
and mediation proceedings proved futile in resolving their dispute. On
September 15, 1986, the Union went on strike. Two days later, UPang
questioned
the legality of the strike before the Ministry of Labor and Employment
[now the Department of Labor and Employment or DOLE] and prayed that
the
dispute be certified to the National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC]
and a Return-to-Work Order be issued. Accordingly, then Minister of
Labor
Augusto S. Sanchez issued the Return-to-Work Order on September 18,
1986.
After the
Regional Office of the Department of
Labor and Employment conducted hearings and received evidence for the
parties,
the Regional Director recommended that the Union's claims for salary
differentials
for school years [SYs] 1974-1981 be dismissed on the ground of
prescription
and that the salary differential claims for SY 1982-1983 to SY
1987-1988
in the total amount of P36,444,018.29 be chargeable against the 60%
incremental
proceeds of tuition fee increases.[1]
On October 5,
1989, the Secretary of Labor rendered
a Decision adopting the recommendations of the Regional Director as
stated
above ordering, however, a re-computation of the salary differentials
due.
The dispositive portion of this decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, except for the modifications
stated
above, the findings of facts and recommendations of the Regional
Director
below is [sic] hereby adopted as our own. The following claims
are
dismissed:
1. Non-satisfaction of the judgment of
the
Supreme
Court in the case of G. R. No. 63122 concerning claims for salary
differential
under P. D. 451 and ECOLA for SY 1981-1982; and
2. Claims for salary differential
pursuant to
P. D. 451 and alleged erroneous computation of 13th-month pay for the
SY
1974-1975 up to 1980-1981.
The School is directed to restore the
mode of
computation of the salaries of faculty members to the usual monthly
basis
effective school year 1989-1990.
The Regional Director below is directed
to
recompute
and to submit the outcome thereof to this office within fifteen [15]
days
from receipt of this Decision, the claims for salary differential under
P. D. 451 and the alleged erroneous computation of the 13th-month pay
for
the periods beginning SY 1982-1983 up to 1987-1988 in the light of the
decision of the Supreme Court that increases in wages and allowances
either
granted in compliance with law, collective bargaining agreement
or
unilaterally by the employer shall be considered compliance with P. D.
451 and chargeable to the 60% of the employees' share of the
incremental
proceeds form any tuition fee increases.
The School is directed to pay the
complainants
their COLAs during the semestral breaks of the school years 1982-1983;
1983-1984; and 1984-1985; chargeable against the 60% share of the
employees
in the incremental proceeds of the tuition pay increases.
SO ORDERED.[2]
[Emphasis supplied].
On November 2
and 21, 1989, on account of the Order
for recomputation, a team of Labor Employment Officers supervised the
actual
verification and examination of the records and found deficiencies in
the
amount of P1,485,915.80.
On September 28,
1990, the Regional Director submitted
another recomputation in the aggregate amount of P4,705,819.34 ordering
UPang to pay its 242 employees deficiencies due as salary differentials
under P. D. 451 and 13th-month pay beginning SYs 1982 up to 1988 and
COLAs
for semestral breaks for SY 1982 up to 1985.cralaw:red
The third and
final recomputation totalling P6,840,700.15
was presented on June 25, 1991[3]
based on the following assumptions:
[1] The share of the employees in the 60%
incremental
proceeds in tuition fee increases have been integrated into their wages
from SY 1974-'75, it being the mandate and effectivity of P.D. 451;
[2] The unpaid ECOLA during semestral
breaks
from SY 1982-'83 up to 1985-'86 have been computed by multiplying the
number
of unpaid days with the applicable ECOLA per day;
[3] That the monthly rates of the covered
employees
from SY 1974-'75 up to 1987-'88 have been determined per directive of
the
Secretary in his Order dated October 5, 1989 and subsequently used in
the
computation; and
[4] That the total computed deficiencies
due
to the employees amount to Six Million Eight Hundred Forty Thousand
Seven
Hundred and 15/100 Pesos [P6,840,700.15]. The breakdown of the
individual
shares of the employees is hereto attached.
Based on this
last recomputed amount, former Labor
Secretary Ruben D. Torres issued the disputed Order on October 10,
1991,
the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the petitioner University of
Pangasinan
is hereby ordered to pay the amount of Six Million Eight Hundred Forty
Thousand Seven Hundred Pesos 15/100 [P6,840,700.15], chargeable against
the 60% share of the employees from the tuition increases, to the 242
employees
listed in pages 375 to 378 of the record of this case, within ten [10]
days from receipt hereof. Let the entire records of this case be
remanded to the Regional Office for immediate enforcement of this
Decision.
Petitioner's
first and second motions for reconsideration
were denied on February 17, 1992[5]
and April 20, 1993,[6]
respectively. Hence, the instant Petition for Certiorari.
Petitioner argues
that the Secretary of Labor
committed grave abuse of discretion in concurring with the
recomputation
made by the Regional Director because the same is grounded upon a
misapprehension
of the laws [Presidential Decree No. 451 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 232]
involved.
In particular, the entire 60% incremental proceeds of the tuition fee
increases
should not be distributed as salary increases alone.
Further,
it claims that even assuming, arguendo, that the 60%
incremental
proceeds were distributed as salary increases integrable into the basic
salary of the employees, to grant the increases retroactively from SY
1974-1975
would violate the rule on prescription of money claims under the Labor
Code.cralaw:red
The Union, on the
other hand, asserts that under
P. D. No. 451, allowances and fringe benefits should be taken from
sources
other than the 60% incremental proceeds of tuition fee increases which
should be spent exclusively for salary increases.cralaw:red
We find merit in
this petition.cralaw:red
The old rule with
respect to the utilization of
tuition fee increases for salary increases is established in
Presidential
Decree No. 451, the law authorizing the Secretary of Education and
Culture
to regulate the imposition of tuition and other school fees.[7]
Rule V, Section 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations issued
pursuant
to his authority under P. D. No. 451 states that at least sixty percent
[60%] of the total incremental proceeds from the increase in tuition
fee
and/or other school charges shall be applied toward an equitable
increase
in the emoluments and other benefits for members of the faculty,
including
the staff and administrative employees of the school concerned. In the
1982 case of University of the East v. U.E. Faculty Association,[8]
the Court explained:
There are only two purposes to which the
incremental
proceeds from increase of tuition fees authorized by the Ministry of
Education
and Culture may be dedicated or devoted, namely: [1] "increase in
salaries
or wages of the members of the faculty and all other employees of the
school
concerned"; and [2] "institutional development, student assistance and
extensions of services, and return of investments;" provided, the
latter
shall not exceed twelve [12%] per centum of the incremental proceeds.
The authority
given to the Secretary of Education
and Culture was interpreted by the Court to mean that the sixty [60%]
percent
incremental proceeds from the tuition increase are to be devoted
entirely
to wage or salary increases and not for allowances and benefits. To
spend
said incremental proceeds for these benefits would mean a reduction of
the salary increase which is intended to help the teachers and staff
workers
support themselves and their families in these difficult economic times.[9]
On September 11,
1982, Batas Pambansa Blg. 232,
or the Education Act of 1982, took effect. Section 42 thereof provides:
Sec. 42. Tuition and Other School
Fees. -
Each private school shall determine its rate of tuition and other
school
fees or charges. The rates and charges adopted by schools pursuant to
this
provision shall be collectible, and their application or use
authorized,
subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of
Education,
Culture and Sports.[10]
[Emphasis
added].
In the
consolidated cases of Cebu Institute of Technology
v. Hon. Blas Ople, et al., Divine Word College of Legaspi v. Hon.
Deputy
Minister Vicente Leogardo Jr., et al., Far Eastern University Employees
Labor Union v. Far Eastern University, et al., Gregorio T. Fabros, et
al.
v. Hon. Augusto Sanchez, et al., Ricardo Valmonte et al. v. Hon.
Augusto
Sanchez,[11]
the Court ruled:
With the repeal of Pres. Decree No. 451
by B.
P. Blg. 232, the allocation of the proceeds of any authorized tuition
fee
increase must be governed by specific rules and regulations issued by
the
Minister [now Secretary] of Education pursuant to his broadened
rule-making
authority under Section 42 of the law.
The guidelines and regulations on tuition
and
other school fees issued after enactment of B.P. Blg. 232 consistently
permit the charging of allowances and other benefits against the 60%
incremental
proceeds. Such was the tenor in the MEC's Order No. 23, s. 1983; MEC's
Order No. 15, s. 1984; MEC's Order No. 25, s. 1985; MEC's Order No. 22,
s. 1986; and DEC's Order No. 37, s. 1987. The pertinent portion of the
latest order reads, thus:
In any case of increase, at least sixty
percent
[60%] of the incremental proceeds should be allocated for increases in
or provisions for salaries or wages, allowances and fringe benefits of
faculty and other staff, including accruals to cost-of-living
allowance,
13th-month pay, social security, medicare and retirement contribution
and
increases as may be provided in mandated wage orders, collective
bargaining
agreements or voluntary employer practices. [Emphasis supplied].
From the
foregoing, it is clear that the rule has
since been changed as to allow the benefits and allowances named above
to be charged to the sixty percent incremental proceeds of the tuition
fee increases. Thus, petitioner's proposition that the 60% incremental
proceeds of tuition fee increases should not be used for salary
increases
alone but should also be spent for benefits and allowances granted to
its
teaching and administrative staff, finds adequate legal basis and
should
be upheld. In failing to consider this new rule concerning the
application
of the sixty percent incremental proceeds of fee increases, herein
respondent
Secretary of Labor committed grave abuse of discretion.
As regards the
second issue that the claims for
salary differentials for SYs 1974-1975 to 1980-1981 had already
prescribed,
We rule in favor of petitioner. The claim for said salary
differentials
were made in September 1986 and, therefore, beyond the three-year
period
allowed by law. Article 291 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides
that
all money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing
during
the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three [3] years from
the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever
barred.
A case in point is Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople,[12]
where the Court held:
There is no doubt that the three-year
period
within which to file actions involving money claims arising out of an
employer-employee
relationship fixed by Article 292 [now Art. 291] of Pres. Dec. No 442
[Labor
Code], as amended, equally applies to claims for the incremental
proceeds
arising from tuition fee increases under Pres. Dec. No. 451. The claims
which gave rise to all these cases are clearly money claims arising
from
an employer-employee relationship and thus, falls under the coverage of
Article 292 of the Labor Code. [Emphasis supplied].
Consequently,
the Secretary of Labor acted with grave
abuse of discretion in adopting the recommended computation of the
Regional
Director which We find erroneous for incorporating the period from SYs
1974-1975 to 1980-1981.
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, the instant
petition is hereby granted. Accordingly, the Decision of the Secretary
of Labor is hereby modified by excluding the claims covering SY's 1974
to 1981 on the ground of prescription. Whatever benefits and allowances
may be found legally and justly due to the respondents shall be charged
to the sixty percent incremental proceeds of the tuition fee increases.
For this purpose, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director
for immediate recomputation of said claims in accordance with the
foregoing
modifications.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Puno,
Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
_____________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Report of Filomeno B. Balbin dated April 25, 1989 cited in the Decision
of Secretary Franklin M. Drilon. Rollo, pp. 27-35.
[2]
Penned by then Secretary Franklin M Drilon Rollo, pp. 26-40.
[3]
Letter of Teresita R. Manzala, Director IV, Rollo, p. 49.
[4]
IRD Case No. 14-86-SN, Rollo, pp. 51-55.
[5]
By Acting Secretary of Labor Ma. Nieves Roldan-Confesor, Rollo, pp.
61-63.
[6]
By Secretary Ma. Nieves R. Confesor, Rollo, pp. 73-74
[7]
Sections 3 and 4 of P. D. No. 451:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sec. 3. Limitations.
- The increase in tuition or other school fees or other charges as well
as the new fees or charges authorized under the next preceding section
shall be subject to the following conditions:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
[a] That no increase in
tuition
or other school fees or charges shall be approved unless sixty [60%]
per
centum of the proceeds is allocated for increase in salaries or wages
of
the members of the faculty and all other employees of the school
concerned,
and the balance for institutional development, student assistance and
extension
services, and return to investments: Provided, That in no case shall
the
return to investments exceed twelve [12%] per centum of the incremental
proceeds; and
[b] That any such
increase
shall
in no case exceed fifteen [15%] per centum of the rates charged during
the preceding school year.
Sec. 4. Rules and
Regulations.
- The Secretary of Education and Culture is hereby authorized,
empowered
and directed to issue the requisite rules and regulations for the
effective
implementation of this Decree. He may, in addition to the requirements
and limitations provided for under Sections 2 and 3 hereof, impose
other
requirements and limitations as he may deem proper and reasonable.
[8]
117 SCRA 554 [1982].
[9]
Saint Louis Faculty Club v. NLRC, 132 SCRA 380 [1984] and University of
Pangasinan Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan, 127 SCRA 691
[1984].
[10]
Rollo, pp. 170-172.
[11]
156 SCRA 629 [1987].
[12]
160 SCRA 503 [1988]. |