MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY ASSOCIATION AND/OR CANDIDO SAQUIN, JOSE LETRERO, REMIGIO SAMPANA, MAXIMO MANEZ, ROMEO RODRIGUEZ, ROMULO NATANAWAN, AND OTHERS ENUMERATED IN ANNEXES A…

In this petition for certiorari,
the MLQ University Faculty Association and some named teachers seek a review of
the Orders dated November 18, 1987 and February 17. 1988 of
respondent Undersecretary Dionisio C. Dela Serna of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE).

On April 24, 1979,
petitioners, for themselves and in representation of other faculty members of
the MLQ University, too numerous to
be named in the title of the
case, but who are listed in Annexes A & B of the
union’s position paper (Annex
B), filed against respondent University before
the Regional Director of Region IV of the DOLE, a complaint for unpaid salary
differentials based on P.D. No. 451
which was promulgated on May 11, 1974 and which authorized the Secretary of
Education and Culture to regulate the imposition of tuition and other school
fees. Pursuant to P.D. 451, the MLQ University was authorized by the Bureau of Higher
Education to increase its tuition fees by 15% for the school years 1974-1975,
1975-1976, and 1977-1978, provided that 60% of the increment should be used to
increase the salaries of both the faculty and non-faculty employees of the
school.

The petitioners alleged
that the University failed to
fully comply with P.D. No. 451 because it gave them an increase of only fifty
centavos. (P0.50) per lecture hour, instead of at least P2.11 per lecture hour,
for the school year 1974-1975 and at least P2.15 per lecture hour, for school
years 1975-1976 and 1977-1978. Their complaint was docketed as LRC Case No. RX FSO-4-541-79 (Annex. A). Their “correct share”
of the 60% tuition increase was computed in Annexes C & D of their position paper (pp. 41-46, Rollo).

On October
22, 1979,   twenty-five (25) of the complainants dropped
out of the case alleging lack of interest.

On January 25,
1980, the MLQU Teachers
and Allied Workers Union (NATAW), et al. intervened to join cause with the complainants.

Director Pucan of the DOLE National Capital Region, issued an
order on June 15, 1983, upholding the complainants’ claim for
salary differentials, but he found that their claims which accrued before April
24, 1976, and those
of the intervenors which accrued before January
25, 1977, or more than
three (3) years before the filing of
their complaints, had already prescribed. Hence, he directed the University to
pay the complainants and intervenors their unprescribed salary increase differentials from April
24, 1976, and January
25, 1977,
respectively, as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent is hereby
directed to pay the individual complainants belonging to MLQU Faculty
Association who did not renounce the latter as their representative, their unprescribed salary increase differential of P1.65 per
lecture hour from April 24, 1976 to
the end of school year
1975-1976 and from 1977-1978 and the individual intervenors
belonging to MLQU Teachers and Allied Workers Union (NATAW) their salary
increase differential of P1.65 per lecture hour from January 25, 1977 to the
end of the school year 1977-1978. However, the case is hereby dismissed for having become
moot and academic, insofar as the twenty-five (25) individual complainants who
filed the motion to dismiss dated October
22, 1979 are concerned.” (Annex C, p. 47, Rollo)

The petitioners received
the order on June 22, 1983 and filed a motion for reconsideration on July 25,
1983. Their motion
for reconsideration was treated
as an appeal. On December 12, 1984, Deputy Minister of Labor Leogardo dismissed the appeal for having been filed beyond
the ten-day reglementary appeal period provided in
Article 223 of the Labor Code. He declared the Order of June 15,
1983 final and unappealable (Annex G, pp. 79-82, Rollo).

Petitioners asked for the
reconsideration of Deputy Minister Leogardo’s order
(Annex H).

On December
6, 1985, Deputy
Minister Leogardo somersaulted by reinstating the
appeal and increasing the pay
differentials awarded to the petitioners in the following manner:

“WHEREFORE, let the Order of this Office, dated 12 December
1984 be, as it is hereby, affirmed with modification in that respondent Manuel L. Quezon Educational Institution, Inc. is hereby ordered:

“1.     To pay the individual complainants
belonging to the MLQU Faculty Association, who did not renounce the latter
as their representative, the aggregate amount of P3.26 as salary differential
per hour from April 25, 1976 up to the end of school year 1975-1976 and for the
school year 1976-1977 and also the aggregate amount of P4.91 as salary
differential per hour from the school year 1977-1978 and thereafter;

”2.      To pay the individual intervenors
belonging to the MLQU Teachers and Allied Workers Union (NATAW) the aggregate
amount of P3.26 as salary differential per hour from January 26, 1977 up to May
1977 and also the aggregate amount of P4.91 as salary differential per hour
from the school year 1977-1978 and thereafter; and

“3.     To adjust the salary rates of the
individual complainants/intervenors based, on the
above increases in salary differentials.” (Annex I, pp. 92-95, Rollo)

Both the University
and the complainants filed motions for
reconsideration of the above Order.

In an order dated November
18, 1987 (Annex K), Undersecretary of
Labor and Employment Dionisio Dela
Serna annulled Deputy Minister Leogardo’s order of December 6, 1985 (Annex I) because the
complainants’ motion for reconsideration of the Regional Director’s Order dated
June 15, 1983 (Annex C) was filed out of time, therefore, the order had become
final, and Deputy Minister Leogardo who so ruled
in his order of December 12, 1984 (Annex G),
should not have entertained the complainants’ motion for
reconsideration of his Order.

Petitioners filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Undersecretary’s Order but it was denied on February 17, 1988 for lack of merit (Annex M).  Hence, this petition for certiorari
wherein they allege that respondent Undersecretary Dela
Serna gravely abused his discretion:

1.  in declaring that the
appeal of the complainants from Director Severino M. Pucan’s Order dated June
15, 1983 was filed out of time;

2.  in annulling Deputy Minister Leogardo’s Order dated December 6, 1985 increasing the pay differentials of the
petitioners;

3.  in holding that the petitioners’ claims for pay
differentials for the school year 1974-1975 and 1975 up to April 23, 1976 had
prescribed despite their written extrajudicial demands to, and acknowledgment
of the obligation by, the respondent
MLQU; and

4.  in excluding the twenty-five (25)
faculty members similarly situated and
equally involved in this case from enjoying
or receiving the benefits
thereof.

The petition is devoid
of merit.

 Petitioners’
contention that their appeal was
made within the reglementary
period of ten working days from the receipt of Director Pucan’s
Order dated June 15, 1983
was refuted by the records showing that they received the order on June 22, 1983. The ten-day period to
appeal expired on July 2, 1983.
Their first motion for extension of time (which the Director did not grant) was
filed on July 8, 1983, or
six (6) days late. Their motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed on July 25, 1983, or 33 days after they
received the Regional Director’s Order.

All their arguments
tending to prove that their appeal was taken within ten (10) working days are
futile for, as early as July 1982, this Court had ruled in Vir-Jen
Shipping & Marine Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 115 SCRA 347 (and
reiterated in RJL Martinez Fishing Corp. vs. NLRC, 127 SCRA 454; John Clement
Consultants vs. NLRC, 157 SCRA 635) that “the shortened (appeal) period of
ten days fixed by Article 223 of the Labor Code contemplates calendar
days and not working days” (Vir-Jen Shipping, supra).

Furthermore, petitioners’ contention that the respondent
Undersecretary Dela Serna gravely abused his
discretion in annulling Deputy Minister Leogardo’s
Order dated December 6, 1985
is not well taken. Since petitioners’ motion for partial reconsideration of
Director Pucan’s Order dated June 15, 1983 was filed, late, that order became final and unappealable. Deputy Minister Leogardo had no jurisdiction to entertain their late appeal.

Neither did the Undersecretary err in holding that petitioner’s’
claims for pay differentials accruing prior to April 24, 1976 had prescribed
because the claims therefor were filed only on April
24, 1979 or more than three (3) years
after the cause of action accrued. This
Court ruled in Cebu Institute of Technology vs. Ople, G.R. No. 58870, April 15, 1988, that:

“The three-year period
within which to file actions involving money claims arising out of an
employer-employee relationship fixed by Article 292, of the Labor Code as
amended (now Art. 291) equally applies to claims for incremental proceeds
arising from tuition fees under P.D. 451. Money claims arising from
employer-employee relations fall under the coverage of Article 292 of the Labor
Code.”

The petitioners contend
that the prescriptive period on their claims for salary differentials for the
school years 1974-1975 and 1975-1976 was interrupted by their written demand on
the University and the latter’s admission of the obligation. Indeed, Article
1155 of the Civil Code provides that “the prescription of actions is
interrupted when they are filed before the court, when there is a written extrajudicial demand’ by the
creditors, and when there is any written acknowledgment of the debt by the
debtor.”

However, the argument
will avail them nothing for the records shows that their written demand
(Annex A), as well as the University
president’s reply thereto (Annex A-1), were both written on November 4, 1974. Thereafter, the three-year
prescriptive period resumed running and expired on November 4, 1977. It was not interrupted by the complaint
which they wrote to President Marcos on August 8, 1977 (Annex B), for, as provided in Article 1155, the claim should be filed
“before the court,” or addressed to the debtor, the University. To recover their salary
differentials for the school years 1974-75
and 1975-76, the petitioners should have filed their claims on or before November
4, 1977. Regional Director Pucan
did not err in holding that
their claims had already prescribed when their complaint (NLRC Case No. NCR-FSD-4-541-79)
was filed on April 24, 1979.

The ten-year prescriptive period fixed in Article 1144 of the
Civil Code may not be invoked by the petitioners for the Civil Code is a law of
general application, while the prescriptive period fixed in Article 292 of the
Labor Code (now Art. 291) is a special law applicable to claims arising from
employer-employee relations (De Joya vs. Lantin, 19 SCRA 893; Lagman vs.
City of Manila, 17 SCRA 579; Philippine Trust Co. vs. Macuan,
54 Phil. 655).

There is no discrimination in the exclusion of the twenty-five
(25) faculty members (who dropped out) from the benefits awarded to the
petitioners in the decision dated June
15, 1983. Their exclusion fully accords with the prayer of their
motion to dismiss that they be excluded as plaintiffs in the case. It may be
assumed that they had good and valid reasons for filing that pleading. Why
counsel for the petitioners insists on bringing them in when they want to be
left out, is, to Our mind, a case of “being more
popish than the pope.”

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed for lack of
merit. Costs against the petitioners.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Gancayco, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., no part.