FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY, PETITIONER, VS. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., RESPONDENT.

Appeal by certiorari, taken by the Far Eastern University, hereafter referred
to as the University, from a resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations
sitting en banc, modifying a decision of one of the Judges of said Court.
The main facts are set forth in said decision, from which we quote:

“From the evidence on record, it appears that Tomas N. Aguirre became a
faculty member of the respondent in 1948. He was first employed at the rate of
P6.00 per hour and then was contracted to teach in the Boy’s High School
Department in the same university at the rate of P30.00 per class, earning an
average of P500.00 to P600.00 a month. Aguirre joined the PACUP, a Legitimate
labor organization, in June, 1953. In July or August, 1953, upon orders of the
president of the PACUP, Jose M. Fernandez, Aguirre began to campaign and recruit
members for the PACUP. As a result of his efforts in campaigning for membership,
he was able to influence seven members from the faculty of the university
(Exhibits ‘B’, ‘B-1’ to ‘B-6′ inclusive). In his campaign for membership, he
approached practically all of the faculty members of the respondent’s Institute
of Education and some from the Arts and Sciences, Business Administration and
Finance, but most of them were afraid to join the union. They were afraid of any
retaliation that’ the respondent may make because of their joining the
union.

“In the year 1953 respondent formed a committee to classify all faculty
members and determine the rates of their back pay and assignments. Ninety-six of
the more than four hundred faculty members were classified as full time
instructors. Aguirre was one of those who was classified by the said committee
as full time instructor in the respondent’s Institute of Education, with a fixed
compensation of P450.00 a month, effective September 1, 1953.

“During the months of December, 1953 up to May, 1954, for teaching in the Far
Eastern University, respondent herein, Aguirre was paid the following December,
1953—P210.00; January, 1954—P302.40; February, 1954—P313.20; March,
1954—P249.00. In June, 1954, respondent stopped giving him teaching
assignments.

“Aguirre claims that in June, 1954, he was no longer given an assignment
because of his union activities while respondent claims that Aguirre was not
given assignment because of decreased enrolment in the university. He further
avers that after recruiting some members, his classification as full time
instructor was changed to reserved full time instructor and his teaching load
was decreased to two hours a day. Hence, his reduced earnings from December,
1953 to May, 1954, as previously mentioned. His salary as a full time instructor
was P5,400.00 per annum or P450.00 per month, irrespective of his teaching load.
Respondent, thru its witness, the dean in the Institute of Education where
Aguirre was teaching, testified and admitted that the reason for Aguirre’s not
receiving any teaching assignment in June, 1954 was because enrolment in the
Institute of Education was going down steadily in the Filipino Language class
where Aguirre was teaching. Among the other Filipino Language instructors are
Baldomero de Jesus, Teodoro Gener, Rosario Bernardo, Dolores Gupit, Inigo
Regalado, and Flordeliza Mendoza who are older members of the faculty than
Aguirre except Regalado, Bernardo and Mendoza. The dean of the Institute of
Education, Luz A. Zafra, admitted also that in the assignment of subjects to
faculty members, length of service, experience, preparation and professional
growth as well as student-faculty relation were taken into consideration. Hence,
if these above-mentioned factors, particularly length of service and experience,
were really taken into consideration, Aguirre, a full time professor should have
been given the assignment instead of Regalado and Mendoza who were only part
time professors and who started teaching after him. The other Tagalog
instructors (professors under the classification) who were given assignments
when Aguirre was not, are not members of the PACUP. It should also be noted that
since before the last war, Aguirre had been teaching in the University of the
Philippines.

“It is true that there were charges brought by respondent against Aguirre but
the same had been investigated and found to be groundless. On the other hand,
Aguirre brought charges against the respondent before the Department of
Education when his teaching load was reduced and the Director of Private
Schools, in his decision of November 5, 1954, directed the respondent to pay the
salary differential which Aguirre failed to earn from December 1, 1953 to 1954
and to give Aguirre assignment in the college department during the first
semester of that current school year under the same condition before his
teaching load was reduced. The Secretary of Education, in his decision, dated
June 22, 1955, affirmed the decision of the Director of Private Schools and on
December 8, 1956, the Executive Secretary by authority of the President of the
Philippines, affirmed the decision of the Director of Private Schools as well as
the Secretary of Education’s decisions previously mentioned. Of course, those
proceedings, in no could be considered as controlling or affecting the case at
bar. At best, they may serve as a grim reminder of the actions of the
governmental entity that could be something to bolster the relationship between
the university and the faculty members. The allegation of respondent to the
effect that it suffered reduced enrolment in 1953-1954, hence necessitating the
laying off the Aguirre, cannot be taken into consideration after a careful
examination of the balance sheet submitted by the respondent in relation to its
motion to dismiss. Said balance sheet shows that in the 1952-1953 fiscal year,
respondent made a net profit of P153,035.25 and in 1953-1954, P258,619.98, while
in 1954-1955, a net profit of P707,003.70 and in 1955-1956, P999,766.88. These
figures show that respondent from 1952 to 1956, has been steadily increasing its
income until in 1958-1959 when it made a net-income of P1,511,293.42. And even
on the assumption that enrolment in the department where Aguirre was teaching
was reduced, still the Court cannot validly reconcile the fact that Aguirre who
was a full time professor receiving a fixed monthly salary could not any further
be given assignment the part time professors and whose length of service in the
university cannot compare with that of Aguirre were given assignments and
sufflered no reduction in salary. Undoubtedly, this Court cannot but conclude
that when the respondent changed the status of Aguirre from a full time
professor at P450.00 a month to that of a reserved full time professor with a
teaching load of two hours and finally got no assignments in June, 1954, it was
motivated other than decreased enrolment, especially in the case of the evidence
that Aguirre campaigned for union membership among the professors, instructors
and teachers of the respondent and the further fact, that other full time
instructors similarly situated but are not union members did not suffer the same
facts of abrupt reduction in their teaching load and salary. As indicated
Aguirre was later deprived of any teaching load in the Institute of Education.
Even part time professors as Panganiban, Mendoza and Regalado had assignments to
the exclusion of Aguirre who was a full time professor. This eventuality, was
apparently, the fear of most of the faculty members who refused to join the
PACUP when Aguirre asked them to become members.

“Ordinarily, back wages are granted whenever there is a finding of a
commission of unfair labor practices. However, in this particular case the
testimony of Aguirre, himself as well as the documentary evidence on the record
show thAt since June, 1955, Aguirre began teaching at the Philippine College of
Commerce with an income of P100.00 a month. and on November 17, 1955, he began
Avorking as a permanent employee in the Central Bank of the Philippines with a
compensation of P300.00 per annum. On September 5, 1956, his salary was raised
to P3,060.00 per annum. The permanent employment obtained by Aguirre in the
Central Bank of the Philippines as well as in the Philippine College of Commerce
is substantial and under the concept of the Industrial Peace Act, his employment
elsewhere in a permanent capacity is sufficient to bar his reinstatement to his
former position in the respondent. While it may be true that his earnings with
the Central Bank may be less than that he was receiving from the Far Eastern
University, yet his status with the Central Bank, is permanent and he could
teach as a sideline iri any school, as in fact he is connected with the
Philippine College of Commerce, a fact that could not happen if he were still
connected with the Far Eastern University.”

At the instance of the Philippine Association of Colleges and University
Professors, hereafter referred to as the PACUP, and/or Tomas N. Aguirre, on
September 28, 1954, an Acting Prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations
filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the University, which later
moved on November 17, 1954, to dismiss the complaint. Subsequently, or on
February 4, 1955, the complainant and/or the offended party, Tomas N. Aguirre,
filed a motion to withdraw said complaint upon the ground that there was a
decision of the Director of Private Schools ordering his reinstatement and the
payment of back wages, as well as wage differential, and that the University was
“using the pendency” of the case “as a ground for not complying with the said
decision”. Acting upon this latter motion, on March 29, 1955, the Court
dismissed said complaint. However, on August 30, 1955, the order of dismissal
was, on motion of the complainant, dated April 22, 1955, set aside for the
reason that the expected amicable settlement of the case had not materialized.
On October 10, 1955, the University filed a “supplemental pleading” to its
motion to dismiss of November 17, 1954, both of which were denied by the Court
on June 23, 1956. Later on the University filed its answer and, the issues
having been joined, the case was tried, after which Judge Arsenio I. Martinez of
said Court rendered the aforementioned decision finding the University guilty of
unfair labor practice and sentencing said institution to pay to Aguirre the
salary differential due him from December 1, 1953 to May 31, 1954, based on
Aguirre’s salary of P450.00 a month, as well as back wages at the same rate,
from June 1, 1954, to November 17, 1955, after deducting therefrom the
compensation paid to him by the Philippine College of Commerce from June 1, 1955
to November 17, 1955, as well as to cease and desist from further committing
unfair labor practices. However, said Judge did not order the reinstatement of
Aguirre in the University, upon the ground that his employment in the Central
Bank of the Philippines is, within the purview of the Industrial Peace Act, a
substantial equivalent of his position as full time instructor in said
University.

On motion for reconsideration filed by the complainant, a majority of the
judges of said Court sitting en banc, affirmed the decision of Judge
Martinez, insofar as the commission of unfair labor practice charged and the
payment of the salary differential and back wages are concerned, but held that
Aguirre’s employment in the Central Bank and the Philippine College of Commerce
are not the substantial equivalent of his aforementioned position as full time
instructor in the University, and, accordingly, modified said decision by,
likewise, sentencing the University to reinstate Tomas N. Aguirre, in addition
to paying him the aforementioned wage differential and back wages, plus “other
emoluments”. Hence, this appeal by certiorari taken by the University. The Court
of Industrial Relations, as one of the appellees herein, has filed a motion,
which we consider as its answer, to dismiss the appeal for lack of merit, upon
the ground that appellant raises no question of law.

Appellant’s contention is that the employment of Aguirre in the Central Bank
and his teaching load in the Philippine College of Commerce are substantial
equivalent to his former position in the University. Upon the other hand, the
resolution appealed reached the opposite conclusion for the following
reasons:

“(a) Aguirre’s work in the respondent university is that of a
professor, while his work in the Central Bank is clerical in nature;

“(b) As professqr, Aguirre’s maximum teaching period is five (5) hours
daily, while in the bank, he works eight (8) hours a day;

“(c) Although his work in the bank allows him to teach part time in
the Philippine College of Commerce for one hour, he could also do the same work
even if he were employed in the university; and

“(d) Aguirre was receiving from the respondent university P5,400.00 a
year, while he receives from the Central Bank P3,000.00 a year only. This one
fact decides the issue, namely, that Aguirre’s position in the Central Bank is
not substantially equivalent to his position in the Far Eastern University.”
‘Any employment at lower wage rate is not substantially equivalent employment’
(Willard, Inc, (1937 2 NLRB 1094, Moorseville Cotton Nills vs. NLRB (CCA-4,
1940), 2, Labor Cases, 18,576; 110 fed. (2d) 79; Puleski Veneer Corp. (1938) 10
NLRB 136; Quidnick Dye Works, Inc. (1937) 2 NLRB 963).”

Although Mr. Aguirre was, not a professor, but a full time instructor in the
University, we agree with the opinion of the lower court, siting en banc.
In addition to the circumstances relied upon by the latter, one important
factor, not mentioned in the resolution appealed from, is decisively in favor of
the conclusion therein reached, and that is that Mr. Aguirre is an instructor in
Tagalog, and that, as such, his position as researcher in the Central Bank has
no future for him. The situation would perhaps have been different had his line
been economics. Inasmuch, however, as Mr. Aguirre has specialized in the Tagalog
dialect, his work as a researcher in the Central Bank is inferior to his job as
full time instructor in the University, not so much because his salary in the
latter is substantially bigger, even if we add thereto his emoluments in the
Philippine College of Commerce, but, specially, because of the future his
position as instructor in the University offers him as a career, which is
non-existent in the Central Bank.

Wherefore, the resolution appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs
against petitioner. It is so ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L.,
Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.