July 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > July 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 174589 : July 30, 2007] ROOSEVELT COLLEGE SYSTEM V. NATIONAL CONCILIATION BOARD AND ROOSEVELT INSTITUTIONS FACULTY & EMPLOYEES UNION. :
[G.R. No. 174589 : July 30, 2007]
ROOSEVELT COLLEGE SYSTEM V. NATIONAL CONCILIATION BOARD AND ROOSEVELT INSTITUTIONS FACULTY & EMPLOYEES UNION.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 30 July 2007:
Resolution. G.R. No. 174589 (ROOSEVELT COLLEGE SYSTEM v. NATIONAL CONCILIATION BOARD and ROOSEVELT INSTITUTIONS FACULTY & EMPLOYEES UNION.) - Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (with an application for a temporary restraining order) questioning the April 21 and the August 1, 2006 Resolutions[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93614.
The parties in this case submitted for resolution their dispute on the payment of annual salary increase and additional sick leave benefits to the panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board-Department of Labor and Employment (NCMB-DOLE).[2]
On January 3, 2006, the VA rendered a Decision granting the salary increase and sick leave benefits, thus:
The appellate court, on April 21, 2006, dismissed the petition for being the wrong mode of judicial review. A petition for certiorari under Resolution Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a decision of the VA, nor can such a petition remedy a lapsed appeal under Rule 43.[5]
With the denial by the CA, on August 1, 2006, of its motion for reconsideration, petitioner timely filed before this Court the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
The appeal is denied due course.
The Court finds no reversible error in the assailed CA resolutions. The proper remedy to assail the decision of the VA is a petition for review filed within 15 days from notice of the said decision under Rule 43,[6] and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be availed of to substitute a lost appeal.[7]
Even if we turn a blind eye to petitioner's transgression of the Rules, still the petition must be denied for lack of merit. The VA based its ruling granting the salary increase not on Republic Act No. 6728 but on the contractual stipulations of the parties in the collective bargaining agreement, which is the law between the parties, the provisions of which must be complied with.[8] As to the award of the additional sick leave benefits, there is valid justification for the same in the long-implemented company practice granting the same, which cannot now be unilaterally withdrawn by the employer without violating Article 100 of the Labor Code, as amended.[9]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED DUE COURSE. The April 21 and the August 1, 2006 Resolutions[10] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93614 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Resolution. G.R. No. 174589 (ROOSEVELT COLLEGE SYSTEM v. NATIONAL CONCILIATION BOARD and ROOSEVELT INSTITUTIONS FACULTY & EMPLOYEES UNION.) - Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (with an application for a temporary restraining order) questioning the April 21 and the August 1, 2006 Resolutions[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 93614.
The parties in this case submitted for resolution their dispute on the payment of annual salary increase and additional sick leave benefits to the panel of Voluntary Arbitrators (VA) of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board-Department of Labor and Employment (NCMB-DOLE).[2]
On January 3, 2006, the VA rendered a Decision granting the salary increase and sick leave benefits, thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Panel of Arbitrators rule that RESPONDENT ROOSEVELT COLLEGE SYSTEM violated Article VII, Section 1, in relation to R.A. 6728, and Article X, Section 4 of the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement and hereby order respondents to:Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the VA on February 7, 2006;[4] hence, it filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA.SO ORDERED.[3]
- Grant the seventy percent (70%) of the Gross Incremental Proceeds derived from the increased tuition fee for School Year 2003- 2004 to all its teaching and non-teaching personnel, in accordance with the computation followed in the past school years; and
- Grant the additional seven (7) working day sick leave benefit to Roberto Caluma and to other personnel of RCS Cainta Branch who were actually hospitalized or similarly situated, and without discrimination.
The appellate court, on April 21, 2006, dismissed the petition for being the wrong mode of judicial review. A petition for certiorari under Resolution Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail a decision of the VA, nor can such a petition remedy a lapsed appeal under Rule 43.[5]
With the denial by the CA, on August 1, 2006, of its motion for reconsideration, petitioner timely filed before this Court the instant petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
The appeal is denied due course.
The Court finds no reversible error in the assailed CA resolutions. The proper remedy to assail the decision of the VA is a petition for review filed within 15 days from notice of the said decision under Rule 43,[6] and a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be availed of to substitute a lost appeal.[7]
Even if we turn a blind eye to petitioner's transgression of the Rules, still the petition must be denied for lack of merit. The VA based its ruling granting the salary increase not on Republic Act No. 6728 but on the contractual stipulations of the parties in the collective bargaining agreement, which is the law between the parties, the provisions of which must be complied with.[8] As to the award of the additional sick leave benefits, there is valid justification for the same in the long-implemented company practice granting the same, which cannot now be unilaterally withdrawn by the employer without violating Article 100 of the Labor Code, as amended.[9]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED DUE COURSE. The April 21 and the August 1, 2006 Resolutions[10] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 93614 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Japar B. Dimaampao: rollo, pp. 54-56 and 92.
[2] Rollo, p. 8.
[3] Id. at 17.
[4] Id. at 55.
[5] Id. at 55-56.
[6] RULES OF COURT, Rule 43, Section 1.
[7] Manila Midtown Hotel v. Borromeo, G.R. No. 138305, September 22, 2004, 438 SCRA 653,657; Nippon Paint Employees Union-Olalia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159010, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 286, 291.
[8] Centro Escolar University Faculty and Allied Worker's Union-Independent v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165486, May 31, 2006, 490 SCRA 61, 72.
[9] Sevilla Trading Company v. Semana, G.R. No. 152456, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 239, 249.
[10] Supra note 1.
