ABRAHAM B. BLANCAFLOR, ANASTACIO T. MERCADO, LEONARDO DANTES, ANA B. AGAIN, MARVIN B. VICENTE, ROBERTO Z. CALICA, MARYLYN M. KARGANILLA and LYDIA S. YUSAY, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION and ILUMINADO G. VALENCIA.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 101013
- Promulgated: 1993-02-02
- Ponente: Regalado, J.
Doctrine
Article 223's bond requirement for appeal may be jurisdictional but should be given a liberal interpretation to allow substantial justice via merits review by the NLRC.
Fixed-term or non-permanent administrative appointments in educational institutions (e.g., department heads, deans) are valid when knowingly accepted by faculty members; such arrangements do not automatically circumvent security of tenure.
Under the university's RRR reorganizational setup, employees were considered separated/retired with entitlement to termination or retirement benefits and possible rehiring except for positions abolished by reorganization.
Facts
Petitioners (administrative officers) were terminated from their positions as dean, department heads and institute secretaries but remained employed as faculty members under the university's reorganizational RRR Program.
The NLRC found issues regarding perfection of private respondents' appeal, validity of retrenchment/abolition, due process, entitlement to separation/retirement pay and possible damages/attorney's fees.
The Supreme Court ordered reinstatement and full backwages for complainant Abraham B. Blancaflor and reinstatement or separation pay for the other eight complainants, subject to positions being abolished.
The Court held that under the 1984 RRR Program employees were considered separated/retired with entitlement to termination or retirement benefits and rehiring except where positions were affected by reorganization.
Issues
Whether or not private respondents' appeal was deemed perfected without the required appeal having been posted within the prescribed appeal period of ten calendar days.
Whether or not petitioners were considered dismissed from service in respondent university when despite their termination as administrative officers they still remained as faculty members.
Whether or not the termination of petitioners complied with due process, including validity of retrenchment for financial losses, proof of approval of abolition of positions, and notice of termination.
Whether or not petitioners are entitled to separation/retirement pay under respondent university's 1983 RRR Program and whether they were entitled to immediate reinstatement upon promulgation of the labor arbiter's decision.
Ruling
The Court answered that petitioners were not illegally dismissed (the main issue) and affirmed the NLRC decision in all other aspects subject to modification regarding separation/retirement benefits.
Petitioners were entitled to termination or retirement benefits under the 1984 RRR Program and to be rehired except where their positions were affected by reorganization; separation pay/retirement benefits were ordered.
The Court disallowed claims for damages and attorney's fees for lack of legal and factual basis; attorney's fees also denied as the case did not involve unlawful withholding of wages.
Reinstatements and backwages were ordered for complainants (Blancaflor and the eight others), with separation pay where positions were abolished, computed to rendition of decision.
Keywords
G.R. No. 101013, Reorganization, Retrenchment and Restructuring (RRR) Program, serious business losses, illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, separation pay, retirement pay, damages, attorney's fees, labor arbiter, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), petition for certiorari, due process of law, retrenchment, valid cause, financial losses, Republic Act No. 6715, Article 223 of the Labor Code, cash or surety bond, perfection of an appeal