THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES AND CONCEPCION D. ANONAS, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to
annul certain orders of the respondent Court of Industrial Relations
and to restrain it from farther proceeding in the action for unfair
labor practice pending before it on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Giving due course to the petition, this Court ordered the issuance of
the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for without bond.

The action for unfair labor practice in the court below was, upon
complaint of the respondent labor union and its complaining members,
Fabiana Borines, Epifania Abijay and Alicia Ebalo, filed by an acting
prosecutor of the Industrial Court against herein petitioners
University of the Philippines and Concepcion Anonas, the matron and
officer-in-charge of the UP Women’s South Dormitory at the University
compound in Diliman, Quezon City. The complaint alleged that said
University and matron discriminated against the three aforenamed union
members in regard to their hire and tenure of employment by not
“reappointing” them in retaliation to their demands for better working
conditions.

Answering the complaint, the petitioners University and Concepcion
Anonas, through counsel, denied the charge of unfair labor practice and
alleged that the employment of the complaining union members as helpers
in the UP Women’s South Dormitory was temporary and that they were not
reappointed because of negligence in the performance of their duties,
insubordination and disloyalty, as found by an investigating committee.
Thereafter, before the case could be heard, the said petitioners filed
a motion to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, it
being alleged that the University of the Philippines is ah agency of
the State performing governmental functions, and that, at any rate, it
is a non-profit organization and therefore not subject to the operation
of Republic Act No. 875. The motion, however, was denied. Entering
appearance as counsel for herein petitioners, the Solicitor General
filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying the
motion to dismiss, but the Industrial Court in banc resolved
to deny it for having been filed beyond the 5-day reglementary period
as provided for by its rules. Reconsideration of that resolution having
been also denied, petitioners brought the case to this Court through
the present petition for certiorari, contending that the University of
the Philippines does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of
Industrial Relations, and that, furthermore, the complaint does not
state a cause of action.

We find the petition to be meritorious.

The University of the Philippines was established “to provide
advanced instruction in literature, philosophy, the sciences, and arts,
and to give professional and technical training.” (Act 1870, sec. 2)
Performing as it does a legitimate government function, the University
is maintained by the Government. It declares no dividends, and is,
obviously, not a corporation created for profit but an institution of
higher education and therefore not an industrial or business
organization. In the case of Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. Araos (102 Phil., 1080), this Court held that—

“* * * our labor legislation from Commonwealth Act.
No. 103, creating the Court of Industrial Relations, down through the
Eight-Hour Labor Law, to the Industrial Peace Act, was intended by the
Legislature to apply only to industrial employment and to govern the
relations between employers engaged in industry and occupations or for
purposes of profit and gain, and their industrial employees, but not to
organizations and entities which are organized, operated, and
maintained not for profit or gain, but for elevated and lofty purposes,
such as, charity, social service, education and instruction, hospital
and medical service, tile encouragement and promotion of character,
patriotism and kindred virtues in the youth of the nation, etc.

“In
conclusion, we find and hold that Rep. Act No. 875, particularly, that
portion thereof, regarding labor disputes and unfair labor practices,
does not apply to the Boy Scouts of the Philippines, and consequently,
the Court of Industrial Relations had no jurisdiction to entertain and
decide the action or petition filed by respondent Araos. * * *”

The above ruling has been reiterated in our decision in the recent case of University of Santo Tomas vs.
Villanueva, etc., et al. (106 Phil., 4S9; 57 Off. Gaz. [11] 1966) and
in the case cited therein. Following the said ruling, it is obvious
that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the
complaint for unfair labor practice filed against herein petitioners.

In addition to the patent lack of jurisdiction of the respondent
court, the complaint for unfair labor practice should be dismissed for
failure to state a valid cause of action. According to the said
complaint, petitioner Concepcion Anonas “notified said complainants
that she had lost her confidence in them, for which, reason, she did
not recommend the renewal of their appointments which were supposed to
be made on June 1, 1956.” It also alleged that the refusal of
petitioner Anonas “to recommend the reappointment of the three
complainants-employees was just a mere retaliation * * *.” It clearly
appearing upon the face of the complaint that the complaining union
members were merely temporary employees whose period of employment has
terminated, their separation from the service is, therefore, justified.
Settled is the rule that, one who holds a temporary appointment has no
fixed tenure of office and as such his employment can be terminated at
the pleasure of the appointing power, there being no need to show that
the termination is for cause. (Mendez vs. Ganzon, 101 Phil., 48; 53 Off. Gaz., [15] 4835; University of the Philippines, et al. vs. CIR, et al., 104 Phil., 986; 55 Off. Gaz.,. [27] 5012.)

In view of the foregoing, the petition for certiorari is granted.
The orders complained of are set aside and the complaint for unfair
labor practice against the petitioners is dismissed, with costs against
respondents other than the respondent court.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, J., I dissent for the reasons set forth in my opinion in Boy Scouts of the Philippines vs. Araos, supra.
Barrera, J., took no part.