RIZAL-MEMORIAL COLLEGES FACULTY UNION-DAVAO WORKERS UNION (RMCFU-DWU), NENY ARGUNA, HELEN BASUG, PAZ BAYQUEN, RODOLFO BRAGA, GLADYS CAYOT, RAQUEL DANGO, AURORA DIZON, FELICIANO …

This decision provides the denouement to the dispute between the
contending parties herein which started almost two decades ago under the aegis
of Republic Act No. 875, otherwise
known as the Magna Carta of Labor, and culminated in the unfair labor practice
case subject of the petition at bar. Petitioner Rizal Memorial Colleges Faculty Union (RMCFU, for short), a legitimate
labor organization affiliated with the Davao Worker’s Union (DWU, for brevity),
together with the other individual petitioners who are members thereof, charge
their employer, respondent Rizal Memorial Colleges (hereinafter called RMC) and
its co-respondents for allegedly having
committed acts of interference with said workers’ right to organization.

On January 15, 1970, Rodolfo Braga and Dionisio B. Jaboni,
presidents of RMCFU and DWU, respectively, sent a letter to the board of
trustees of respondent college asking for direct recognition and collective
bargaining. Respondent Leopoldo M.
Abellera, as president of the school, replied on January 20, 1970 that the
letter would be presented to the board of trustees at its meeting on February
14, 1970. Abellera further informed
them of the receipt of another letter from respondent Rizal Memorial Colleges
Faculty League (hereafter RMCFL) likewise requesting recognition and demanding
collective bargaining.^[1]

On January 26, 1970, RMCFU filed a petition for direct
certification, as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative, with the then Court of Industrial
Relations claiming that it was the only union in the bargaining unit and its
members constituted the majority of the faculty of RMC. RMCFL intervened in said
proceedings on February 9, 1970, alleging that it had already filed an
application for registration as a labor
union with the Department of Labor, further claiming that its members
constituted the majority of the teachers and instructors in RMC who were
eligible to vote in a certification election, and contending that the majority
of the members of petitioner union were not legally qualified to be union
members since they were stockholders of RMC.^[2]

On March 17, 1970, RMCFU staged a strike, having theretofore
filed a notice thereof on the
ninth of the same month.^[3] In a complaint dated March 14, 1970,
petitioner filed with the then Court of Industrial Relations an unfair labor
practice case, docketed as ULP Case No. 282, alleging that “Leopoldo M.
Abellera has initiated, dominated, assisted or contributed to the organization
of the so-called Rizal Memorial Colleges Faculty League which is composed of few teachers or
instructors employed with the respondent school for the primary purpose of
busting the FACULTY UNION and delaying its recognition by the management,”
and that the president of the petitioner union, Rodolfo D. Braga, had been
subjected to discrimination by respondent Abellera in regard to the terms and
conditions of his employment.^[4]

What ensued thereafter, according to petitioner, was the holding
of a meeting on April 4, 1970 between the striking teachers and Abellera
wherein the picketing teachers allegedly agreed to return to their classrooms,
with respondent Abellera having made, inter alia, the following
commitments substantially embodied on April 6, 1970 in a “return to work
agreement,”^[5]
viz:

“a) – That the employer will not take any
retaliatory measures against the members of the striking union by reason of any
union activities;

b) – That the employer shall not dismiss any
member of the striking union by reason of union activities and that there would
be no hiring of new teachers, unless the present teachers cannot cope up (sic)
with the work;

c) – That
job security shall be extended to the striking members of the union; and

d) – That
the striking members shall be paid completely their salary during the entire
duration of the strike.”^[6]

Petitioners, however, claim that the picket lines were thereafter
lifted and the teachers returned to work, but when the aforesaid agreement was presented to Abellera and the
board of trustees, they refused to affix their signatures thereto.^[7]

Significantly, while the public respondent agrees with the
foregoing statement of facts, private respondents vigorously deny that on April
4, 1970 there was such a conference about the strike. They claim that “it was purely a faculty meeting that was
held on that date which dealt exclusively on the rules and regulations of the
Bureau of Private Schools and of the Rizal Memorial Colleges itself,”
hence no agreement could be said to have been arrived at.^[8]

Likewise controverted by private respondents is the claim of
petitioners that Abellera again promised that he would take in all the striking
teachers after the second strike of the teachers commenced on June 20,
1970. The reason advanced by the
teachers for staging this second strike was the dismissal of Abelardo Posadas,
Jr., Lilia Villanueva, Feliciano Villanueva, Abelardo Celestial and Jose
Majaducon. Petitioners aver that they
lifted the strike on July 6, 1970 to show their good faith to Abellera who met
with their union leader and one of their lawyers, in which meeting specific
issues which could lead to the settlement of the strike were discussed. It was also during this meeting when
Abellera was supposed to have promised to reinstate all teachers who had struck
anew.^[9]

It is not sufficiently apparent from the records as to whether such agreements
were actually made nor can we make definite findings thereon at this late
stage. What is adequately clear to us,
however, is that a dispute between the parties resulted in the filing by
the petitioners on August 1, 1970, of
Unfair Labor Practice Case no. 296 with the former Court of Industrial
Relations based on the following grounds: (1) refusal to recognize and bargain with the complainant RMCFU;
(2) dismissal, harassment, discrimination and intimidation of RMCFU members by
Abellera; and (3) the RMC Faculty League is dominated and assisted by the
employer.^[10]

With the advent of the
Labor Code and the resultant abolition of the Court of Industrial Relations,
the aforesaid cases were transferred to Regional Office No. XI; Davao City, of
respondent National Labor Relations Commission as NLRC Cases Nos.
70-ULP-XI-77 and 71-ULP-XI-77. On
December 5, 1978, Assistant Regional Director Magno C. Cruz rendered a decision
in said cases, the decretal portion of which reads:

“RESPONSIVE TO ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. Declaring respondents Rizal Memorial
Colleges and Leopoldo Abellera guilty of unfair labor practice for refusal to
renew the teaching contracts of Felicidad Espino, Patrocinia de Jesus,
Francisca Limsianco (sic), Dulce Saavedra, Raquel Dango, Sylvia Relopez, Loreta
Magpantay, Carmen Lauricio, Angelina Magpantay, Helen Basug and Amelita Ferido
for no other reason than their union activities;

2. Ordering
respondents Rizal Memorial Colleges and Leopoldo Abellera to reinstate the
above-enumerated teachers to their former positions but fixing their teaching
loads in accordance with Item 78 of the Manual of Instructions for Private Schools or, in lieu thereof, to pay
the termination pay of the above-enumerated teachers in an amount equivalent to
one-half (1/2) month for every year of service, computed on the basis of their earnings immediately prior to
their separation from the service;

x x x

5. Finding the non-renewal of the teaching
contracts of part-time teachers to be valid and legal; and

6. Ordering the Rizal Memorial Colleges and
Leopoldo Abellera to cease and desist from further committing the unfair labor
practice acts complained of.”^[11]

The assistant director found that the refusal of therein
respondents to recognize and negotiate with RMCFU during the pendency of the
petition for certification election was legal because to do so would be unfair
labor practice against RMCFL. He
consequently ruled that unless and until RMCFU is certified as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative of the faculty members, the employer could
not be compelled to confer with RMCFU for the execution of a collective
bargaining agreement. Additionally, he
found that there was insufficient
proof to support the contention that RMCFL was dominated and assisted by RMC
and Abellera.^[12]

Applying the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of Republic Act No.
875, as amended by Republic Act
No. 3350, which was then the governing legislation, the charge of unfair labor
practice was upheld but only because of the illegal dismissal of the eleven
(11) teachers named therein. Their
dismissal, according to the assistant director, was for no other reason than
their union activities. This finding
was made on the basis of a letter
written by Abellera of the following tenor:

“1. We have
definitely refused to renew our contract with the following because of their
propensity to create intrigues in the school, to instigate others to abandine
(sic) their classes and for other school violations. If we renew their contracts, WE ARE SURE OF HAVING ANOTHER STRIKE
IN OUR SCHOOL THIS SEMESTER:

1. Mrs. Felicidad Espino

2. Mrs. Patrocinia de Jesus

3. Mrs. Francisca Limsiaco

4. Mr. Arnaldo Masiglat

5. Atty. Jose Majaducon

6. Mrs. Dulce Saavedra

7. Mrs. Raquel Dango

8. Mrs. Sylvia Relopez

9. Mrs. Loreta Magpantay

10. Mrs. Carmen Lauricio

11. Mrs. Angelina Magpantay

12. Miss Amelita Ferido

13. Miss Helen Lasug”^[13]

With respect to the non-renewal of the contracts of Majaducon and
Masiglat who were also included in the above list, no unfair labor practice was
said to have been committed. The
assistant director accepted Abellera’s explanation that Majaducon’s separation
from the service was due to his decision to quit teaching and appear as
collaborating counsel in a damage
suit against former Mayor Elias B. Lopez of Davao City.

Arnaldo Masiglat, on the
other hand, was one of the faculty members who received a letter from Abellera
advising them that their teaching contracts with the school expired at the end
of school year 1969-1970 and that they were within the three-year probationary
period provided by law. Abellera
stated in said letter that if they were still interested in teaching in the
same school the following school year, they could apply therefor, attaching
certain documents to their applications. Aside from Masiglat, the group included Pedro Pangan, Merlinda Yap,
Gladys Cayot, Valeria Mata, Paz Bayquen, Marietta Gilay, Lucita Racaza, Erlinda
Pinero, Amada Viñas and Filomena Morales.^[14] As held in said decision, the records of the
cases failed to show that the above-enumerated complainants had rendered at
least three (3) years of continuous services as teachers, hence they
could not be considered permanent employees pursuant to Item 75 of the Manual
of Regulations for Private Schools.

The other petitioners who
were part-time teachers were also held to have been legally terminated and
validly replaced with full-time teachers, in accordance with Item 76 of them
same manual which expresses the desirability of employing only full-time
teachers. A full-time teacher was described
therein as one whose total
working day is devoted to the school, has no other regular remunerative
employment, and is paid on a regular
monthly basis regardless of the number of teaching hours.^[15]

It was found that Virginia Aquino, Leticia Arkoncel, Josefina
Avanzado, Lydia Capili, Alberto Celestial, Sr., Linda Logan and Susan Medalla
were part-time teachers of RMC but full-time teachers in other schools. On the other hand, Antonio Fuliga was an
employee of the City Engineer’s Office and Nena Arguna was an employee of the
Bureau of Internal Revenue. Paz Bayquen
left her job when she was called to teach in a public school; Mila Macalinao
and Angel Alvaro transferred to Cebu City; Feliciano Villanueva left for the
United States while Edgardo Buhay, a bank employee, was transferred to General
Santos City. Rodolfo Braga went to
Manila to review for the Bar
examinations; Shiela Buot (nee Espino) did not report for duty on the first day
of classes because she got married a few
weeks before and went on her honeymoon; and Abelardo Posadas, Jr. and Lilia Villanueva
were not qualified to teach as reflected in their transcripts of records. The aforesaid considerations were submitted
as the reasons for the non-renewal of the teaching contracts of the aforesaid
persons.^[16]

No unfair labor practice was found when the respective teaching
loads of the rest of the petitioners were reduced. The assistant director did not consider the same as harassment, relying on Item 78 of
the aforesaid manual which provides as follows:

“No instruction can be efficiently carried on over a
considerable period of time if the teachers carry an unusually heavy teaching
load and/or excessive number of subject preparations. Elementary teachers shall be assigned to no more than full charge
of one class and where departmental teaching is observed, to an equivalent
load. Secondary teachers shall be
assigned to not more than six daily forty minute periods of instruction. In college, the normal teaching load of a full-time
instructor shall be eighteen hours a week. The teaching load of part-time instructors who are full-time employees
outside teaching shall not exceed twelve hours a week.”^[17]

Definitely, no unfair labor practice was committed with respect
to Sofia Gundran who was named as a complainant
in the said cases and as a petitioner
herein. The petitioner union did not
deny Abellera’s allegation that she was
never dismissed. Abellera
claimed that she was one of the teachers whom he rated very highly for
efficiency and she was eventually appointed as acting dean of the College of
Commerce.^[18] This fact was reiterated by Abellera and RMC in their “Statement in
Compliance with Resolution of 8 February 1988” where they stated that
Sofia Gundran now holds the position of assistant dean of the College of
Commerce of RMC. Incidentally, in the
same statement, respondents claim that Rodolfo Braga is now a full-time teacher
with respondent RMC.^[19]

Both parties not being satisfied with said decision, separate
appeals were filed with the National Labor Relations Commission. On July 31, 1980, respondent commission
promulgated a decision modifying
the appealed decision by completely absolving RMC and Abellera from any
liability for unfair labor
practice. Public respondent, holding
that there was no sufficient basis for holding the employer guilty of
such illegal acts, observed that:

“Considering that the teachers mentioned in the letter of
Abellera were the ones who led the earlier
strike, which was even flayed by the Assistant Director in his decision,
the refusal of the respondent Abellera to renew their contracts was motivated
by a desire to safeguard the rights of the school and its students. Moreover, there is no actual strike wherein
it could be said that the respondent–appellants interfered with or prevented
the right of the teachers concerned from participating therein. For this reason, we rule that there was no
sufficient basis for holding respondents–appellants guilty of an unfair labor
practice act. However, being permanent
employees, by the non–renewal of their contracts, which is admitted by
respondents, the teachers concerned were deemed constructively dismissed
without just cause. Under the law then
enforced, Republic Act 1052 as amended, otherwise known as the Termination Pay
Law, they are entitled to separation pay equivalent to one-month salary or
one-half month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher, a fraction
of six months or more being considered
as one year.”^[20]

Petitioners now seek the reversal of said decision of respondent commission in the present
petition for certiorari. Specifically, it is prayed
that “the decision under review be reconsidered and set aside and another
one be entered declaring respondents RMC and ABELLERA guilty of unfair labor
practice acts, ordering the reinstatement of petitioners and ordering further
that they be paid back wages of three years and that said respondents should
cease and desist from committing unfair labor practice acts in the respondent
school.”^[21]

A careful review of the entire records of these cases sustains
the finding that unfair labor practice was actually committed, hence respondent
commission erred in modifying the appealed decision of the assistant director
on that score. The finding of unfair
labor practice due to the employer’s refusal to renew the teaching contracts of
the eleven (11) faculty members referred to in the letter of Abellera should
not have been disturbed by public respondent. It was established that said teachers were permanent employees who had
rendered six (6) to twenty (20) years of service.^[22]
Their permanent status notwithstanding, they were dismissed because Abellera
feared that if their contracts were renewed, there would be a strike in the school the following
semester. This is indisputably an
unwarranted interference with the right of workers to self-organization and to
engage in concerted activities. An
apprehension that there might be a future strike in the school is not a ground
for dismissal of the workers. While a
strike may result in hardships or prejudice to the school and the studentry,
the employer is not without recourse. If the employer feels that the action is tainted with illegality, the
law provides the employer with ample remedies to protect his interests. Decidedly, dismissal of employees in
anticipation of an exercise of a constitutionally
protected right is not one of them.

Neither can we accept respondent commission’s theory, considering
the positive factual findings thereon, that there was no actual strike hence it
supposedly could not be said that the respondent school interfered with or
prevented the right of the teachers concerned from participating therein. Furthermore, the existence of a strike was not of such pervasive
significance because it is indubitable that the employees concerned were
dismissed by reason of their union activities. No other reason is suggested by the facts of these cases which would
support a contrary conclusion,
especially if we consider that the teachers concerned were the ones who led the
earlier strike.

The finding that unfair labor
practice was committed should also cover the case of Majaducon whose contract was not renewed. Not only was he
listed in the letter of Abellera which, as earlier stated, was
the basis for the finding of unfair labor practice, but no sufficient ground to
validly dismiss him was established. Abellera claimed that Majaducon stopped teaching on his own volition
supposedly because when he discovered that Majaducon was appearing as
collaborating lawyer in a case against the former mayor, Majaducon was reminded
that the school owed favors to the city government and the city major hence the
school had to maintain cordial relations with them. Eventually, Majaducon was asked to make a choice whether to
continue as a faculty member or to withdraw as a lawyer against the mayor. Such compulsion to make an unnecessary choice placed undue and
unjustified pressure on the employee who otherwise would not have thought of
leaving his employment as a teacher. There was no showing whatsoever that Majaducon’s work as counsel
interfered with his duties as a teacher. Majaducon’s cessation from employment could not, therefore, be
considered as voluntary on his part and was in the nature of a contrivance to effect a
dismissal without cause.

The case of Arnaldo
Masiglat is different. Although he was one of the teachers listed in the aforesaid letter of Abellera, the
ground for dismissing him appears to be tenable. He was one of those teachers who were advised by Abellera of the expiration of their teaching contracts hence it was within the discretion of the
school to terminate his services. No
proof establishing his permanent status appears from the records, hence the
termination of his employment was not due to dismissal but because of the
expiration of his contract.

With respect to the other
petitioners who were allegedly illegally dismissed, the records do not reveal
any act of unfair labor practice. No
countervailing evidence was presented to rebut the proof submitted by
respondent RMC showing lawful causes for dismissing them. Neither was there any substantial evidence
that they were dismissed for their union activities. The suspicion that they were dismissed for such reasons, when
coupled with other facts which in themselves might have been inadequate
to support an adverse finding against the employer, may suffice to sustain a finding that the employer violated the provisions of the law.^[23] Such other complementary circumstances are,
however, absent with respect to them.

Since, as a rule
applicable to these cases, the Court cannot take cognizance of factual issues,
and generally the findings of the administrative bodies which decided these
cases are binding on us, no evidence to prove the other allegations of
the parties can be adduced or accepted in the present posture of this
proceeding. Thus, we cannot pass on the
contention that RMC was guilty of unfair labor practice for dealing with the
teachers “one by one during the existence of the labor dispute and
discouraging their union activities by publishing letters of union members who
resigned.”^[24]
For the same reason, we desist from making any pronouncement on the claim that
Abellera was assisting RMCFL, allegedly a company dominated union.

IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, the decision of
respondent commission is MODIFIED
and respondents Rizal Memorial
Colleges and Leopoldo Abellera are declared to have committed unfair labor
practices. Petitioners Felicidad
Espino, Patrocinia de Jesus, Francisca Limsiaco, Dulce Saavedra, Raquel
Dango, Sylvia Relopez, Loreta Magpantay, Carmen Lauricio, Angelina Magpantay,
Helen Basug, Amelita Ferido and Jose Majaducon are hereby ORDERED reinstated to the same or
equivalent positions without loss of seniority rights, with backwages from the time of their
termination. However, pursuant
to our current jurisprudential policy, such backwages shall not exceed three
(3) years, without any qualification and to be computed on the basis of their
salaries immediately before dismissal from employment. If supervening events have rendered the
reinstatement of said petitioners impracticable, respondent Rizal Memorial
Colleges is hereby ORDERED to pay the aforesaid petitioners separation pay equivalent to one (1) month salary,
computed on the same basis, for every year of service respectively rendered by them.

This decision is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Padilla, and Sarmiento, JJ., concur.

*
This should properly be Rizal Memorial Colleges Faculty
League.

^[1]
Rollo, 150, 247-248.

^[2]
Ibid., 176-177.

^[3]
Ibid., 22.

^[4]
Ibid., 24-26.

^[5]
Ibid., 55-56.

^[6]
Ibid., 29-30.

^[7]
Ibid., 34.

^[8]
Ibid., 169, 385.

^[9]
Ibid., 9.

^[10]
Ibid., 175.

^[11]
Ibid., 189.

^[12]
Ibid., 178-179, 189.

^[13]
Ibid., 186.

^[14]
Ibid., 61-71.

^[15]
Ibid., 183.

^[16]
Ibid., 181-183.

^[17]
Ibid., 184.

^[18]
Ibid., 166.

^[19]
Ibid., 191-195.

^[20]
Ibid., 215-216.

^[21]
Ibid., 20.

^[22]
Ibid., 188.

^[23]
AHS/Philippines Employees Union (FFW),
et al. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., 149 SCRA
5 (1987).

^[24]
Rollo, 13.