UIC Vs Sec of DOLE
UIC Vs Sec of DOLE
UIC Vs Sec of DOLE
Selga and Bonifacio Sts., Davao City. Private respondent [the Union] is the
strike mostly
certified sole bargaining agent of UIC’s rank and file employees.
_______________
On 20 June 1994, the Union filed a notice of strike on the grounds of
bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice. On 20 July 1994, the National 2 Id.
clause in the CBA to be signed by the parties bars the filing and/or
continuation of alleged illegal dismissal cases which arose in the year 1994 On November 20, 2006, UIC filed two separate Petitions
for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. In the first petition,
and which the Secretary of Labor had ruled not to have been subsumed by the
docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 01396-MIN (the “Net Incremental
Assumption of Jurisdiction case pending with the Office of the Secretary Proceeds Case”), UIC assailed the Secretary’s order
_______________
which is agreed upon to be submitted for voluntary arbitration before the
Honorable Secretary of Labor.] 4 Id., at pp. 99-104.
increases for the school years 1995-2000. UIC opposed the motion stating that second petition, docketed as C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 01398-MIN (the
the computation should be done by the grievance machinery provided for in “Illegal Dismissal Case”), UIC assailed the Secretary’s finding that
the CBA about to be signed by the parties. the Respondent Employees were illegally dismissed, as well as the
On 08 June 2004, the parties signed the CBA (08 June 2004 CBA award of full backwages and other monetary benefits. The Court of
6
hereafter) for school years 1995-2000. On that occasion, the parties agreed to Appeals ordered the consolidation of the two cases on December 14,
rescind the aforequoted paragraph of the 21 April 2004 Agreement to give 2006. 7
way for the signing of the CBA. The 08 June 2004 CBA was submitted to the On April 24, 2007, the Court of Appeals promulgated its
Regional Labor Office on 14 July 2004.
Decision denying the consolidated petitions. In the Net Incremental
8
_______________ Proceeds Case, the appellate court held that the power of the
Secretary to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes under Article
3 Id., at p. 166. 263(g) of the Labor Code is plenary and discretionary in nature,
which necessarily involves the power to resolve questions incidental
to the labor dispute. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the amount
9
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 14, 441 the Illegal Dismissal Case, the Court of Appeals upheld the
2015 Secretary’s conclusion that the Respondent Employees were illegally
dismissed on the ground that UIC could not validly prevent them
University of the Immaculate from joining the Union since they did not perform managerial
functions. The appellate court opined that notwithstanding the On July 9, 2007, we issued a temporary restraining order
confidential nature of Respondent Employees’ position, they were not directing the respondents to refrain from enforcing the Court of
prohibited from joining the Union; hence, their dismissal by UIC was Appeals’ April 24, 2007 Decision and May 31, 2007 Resolution. 19
2015
University of the Immaculate
Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
The powers of the Secretary in “national interest” cases are not
of Labor and Employment set by metes and bounds. Rather, the Secretary is given wide latitude
fied. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied UIC’s motions for
11
to adopt appropriate means to finally resolve the labor dispute. The
reconsideration on May 31, 2007. 12
doctrine of “great breadth of discretion” possessed by the Secretary
21
Aggrieved, UIC filed the present petition, where it essentially dates back to our earlier rulings which recognized the broad powers
raises the same arguments with respect to the Secretary’s creation of of the former Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), which had
the tripartite committee, computation of net incremental proceeds, jurisdiction
finding of illegal dismissal, and award of backwages. _______________
In its comment, respondent Union counters that it was
constrained to file an urgent motion with the Office of the Secretary 18 Rollo, pp. 1179-1183.
19 Id., at pp. 888-890.
for the creation of a tripartite committee because there was no other 20 G.R. No. 127422, April 17, 2001, 356 SCRA 577, 585.
way to solve the issue on computation of the incremental proceeds, 21 Bachrach Transportation Co., Inc. v. Rural Transit Shop Employees’
considering that UIC had ignored and rejected the existence and Association, No. L-26764, July 25, 1967, 20 SCRA 779, 784.
efficacy of the CBA. On the issue of the computation of the net
13
In a separate comment filed by the Respondent Employees, they University of the Immaculate
claim that they have the right to maintain their union membership not Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
for the purpose of collective bargaining, but for legal representation
in dealing with the employer; thus, there is no legal justification for
of Labor and Employment
their dismissal. They further assert that the matter of backwages and
16 over national interest cases prior to the enactment of the Labor Code.
other monetary benefits is already barred by res judicata since the In Philippine Marine Radio Officers’ Association v. CIR, decided in
Secretary’s award merely complied with our ruling in G.R. No. 1957, we held that “[i]f the [CIR] is granted authority to find a
151379 17 solution in an industrial dispute and such solution consists in the
_______________ ordering of employees to return back to work, it cannot be contended
that the [CIR] does not have the power or jurisdiction to carry that
11 Id., at pp. 119-121. solution into effect.” Again, in FEATI University v. Bautista: “Once
22
12 Id., at pp. 125-136. the jurisdiction is acquired pursuant to the presidential certification,
13 Id., at p. 986. the CIR may exercise its broad powers as provided in
14 Id., at pp. 989-990.
15 Id., at pp. 995-996. Commonwealth Act No. 103. All phases of the labor dispute and the
16 Id., at pp. 1184-1186. employer-employee relationship may be threshed out before the CIR,
17 University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, January 14, and the CIR may issue such order or orders as may be necessary to
2005, 448 SCRA 190.
make effective the exercise of its jurisdiction.” Judicial authorities
23
of Labor and Employment Here, the Secretary ordered the creation of a tripartite committee
affirming the payroll reinstatement of the Respondent Employees. 18 for the purpose of resolving one of the contentious issues in OS-AJ-
003-95, i.e., the computation of the net incremental proceeds under
Republic Act No. 6728, as in-
26
_______________ connected with the objective of the law, as it is in this case, courts
will not disturb the same.
22 102 Phil. 373, 383 (1957).
23 No. L-21462, December 27, 1966, 18 SCRA 1191, 1221.
24 Caltex Refinery Employees’ Association v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 123782, B
September 16, 1997, 279 SCRA 218, 243-244.
25 MERALCO v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598, January 27, 1999, 302 SCRA 173, UIC argues that the Secretary gravely abused his discretion
192.
26 Republic Act No. 6728, Section 5(2) provides:
because at the time he ordered the creation of the tripartite
committee, the parties had already signed — but not yet ratified —
the final draft of the CBA, which contains grievance mechanism
provisions. UIC posits that the grievance procedure in the signed
446 CBA should apply insofar as the determination of the net incremental
446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS proceeds is concerned. In support of its contention, UIC
cites University of San Agustin Employees’ Union-FFW v. Court of
ANNOTATED Appeals, where we held that the grievance machinery embodied in
29
University of the Immaculate the CBA must be recognized and enforced by the Secretary. In
response, the Union asserts that UIC itself had rejected and
Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary disregarded the execution and efficacy of the CBA and, thus, cannot
of Labor and Employment rely on the grievance machinery contained in the same CBA.
creased by mutual agreement of the parties. It must be recalled that UIC’s reliance in University of San Agustin is misplaced. In said
the second notice of strike filed by the Union on January 20, 1995 case, there was already a valid and subsisting five-year CBA between
was triggered by, among others, the bargaining deadlock on the very the parties. The CBA provided, among others,
issue of the correct computation of the net incremental proceeds. The _______________
notice of strike consequently prompted the Secretary to assume
jurisdiction over the dispute. It cannot therefore be denied that the 28 Philtread Workers Union v. Confesor, G.R. No. 117169, March 12, 1997, 269
SCRA 393, 399.
disposition of the net incremental proceeds issue is necessary to 29 G.R. No. 169632, March 28, 2006, 485 SCRA 526.
resolve the long-standing dispute between UIC and the Union. Put
simply, there is a reasonable connection between the Secretary’s
order and the settlement of the labor dispute. Accordingly, we
conclude that it is well within the allowable area of discretion that the 448
Secretary ordered the creation of the tripartite committee. 448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
The authority to create the tripartite committee flows from the
jurisdiction conferred by Article 263(g) to the Secretary. A grant of
ANNOTATED
jurisdiction, in the absence of prohibitive legislation, implies the University of the Immaculate
necessary and usual incidental powers essential to effectuate it — 27
Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
also referred to as “incidental jurisdiction.” Incidental jurisdiction
includes the power and authority of an office or tribunal to do all of Labor and Employment
things reasonably necessary for the administration of justice within that the economic provisions shall be for a term of three years.
the scope of its jurisdiction, and for the enforcement of its judgment Towards the end of the third year of the CBA, as the economic
and mandates. Inci- provisions were about to expire, the employer and the union reached
_______________ an impasse on economic matters, ultimately resulting in a labor
dispute. Thus, at the time the dispute arose in University of San
30
(2) … tuition fees under subparagraph (c) may be increased, on the condition that Agustin, the grievance machinery was in place. The existence of an
seventy percent (70%) of the amount subsidized allotted for tuition fee or of the tuition
fee increases shall go to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of
effective CBA was an important factual consideration for the Court’s
teaching and nonteaching personnel except administrators who are principal stockholders holding that the grievance machinery must be respected.
of the school, and may be used to cover increases as provided for in the collective In this case, however, the facts show that the CBA had not been
bargaining agreements existing or in force at the time when this Act is approved and ratified by the majority of all workers in the bargaining unit, as
made effective: Provided, That government subsidies are not used directly for salaries of
teachers of non-secular subjects. … required by Article 231 of the Labor Code, when the Secretary
27 Philippine Air Lines Employees’ Association v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc., No. mandated the creation of the tripartite committee. Compliance with
L-18559, June 30, 1964, 11 SCRA 387, 393. the ratification requirement is mandatory; otherwise, the CBA is
ineffective. In fact, UIC itself admits that the CBA did not become
31
effective for want of ratification. The CBA not having been ratified,
32
33 Cabarles v. Maceda, G.R. No. 161330, February 20, 2007, 516 SCRA 303, 316. for it to be given some probative value. The Statement of Profit and Losses
34 Valderama v. Macalde, G.R. No. 165005, September 16, 2005, 470 SCRA 168, submitted by Crispa, Inc. to prove its alleged losses, without the
183.
35 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Ley Construction and Development accompanying signature of a certified public accountant or audited by an
Corporation, G.R. No. 185590, December 3, 2014, 743 SCRA 618; Eastern Shipping
Lines, Inc. v. BPI/MS Insurance Corp., G.R. No. 193986, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA independent auditor, are nothing but self-serving documents which ought
743; Limbauan v. Acosta, G.R. No. 148606, June 30, 2008, 556 SCRA 614.
36 Carinan v. Cueto, G.R. No. 198636, October 8, 2014, 738 SCRA 48; Rosete v. to be treated as a mere scrap of paper devoid of any probative value . For
Briones, G.R. No. 176121, September 22, 2014, 735 SCRA 647; Meyr Enterprises
Corporation v. Cordero, G.R. No. 197336, September 3, 2014, 734 SCRA sure, this is not the kind of sufficient and convincing evidence necessary to
253; Primanila Plans, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, G.R. No. 193791, discharge the burden of proof required of petitioners to establish the alleged
August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 264; Angeles v. Bucad, G.R. No. 196249, July 21, 2014, 730
SCRA 295. losses suffered by Crispa, Inc. in the years immediately preceding 1990 that
37 De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105213, December 4, 1996, 265
SCRA 299; Manila Lighter Transportation, Inc. v. Court of would justify the retrenchment of respondent employees.…” (Emphasis in
original)
While the above cited cases involve proof necessary to establish losses in
450 cases of business closure or retrenchment, we see no reason why this rule
450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS should not equally apply to the determination of the proper level of wage
award in cases where the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction in a labor
ANNOTATED dispute pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. (Citations omitted)
40
_______________
finality. In this case, the tripartite committee, the Secretary, and the
38
Court of Appeals were unanimous in disallowing the deductions 40 Id., at pp. 25-26.
being claimed by UIC. We find no cogent reason to disturb the same. 41 G.R. No. 155609, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 594.
In any case, the rationale for the disallowance of deductions in
the proceedings below, i.e., the amounts being claimed did not appear
in UIC’s audited financial statements, is consistent with established
jurisprudence. In Asia Brewery v. TPMA, we held: 39 452
In Restaurante Las Conchas v. Llego, several employees filed a case for 452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
illegal dismissal after the employer closed its restaurant business. The
employer sought to justify the closure through unaudited financial statements ANNOTATED
showing the alleged losses of the business. We ruled that such financial University of the Immaculate
statements are mere self-serving declarations and inadmissible in evidence
even if the employees did not object to their presentation before the Labor Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
Arbiter. Similarly, in Uichico v. National Labor Relations Commission, the
services of several employees were terminated on the ground of retrenchment of Labor and Employment
due to alleged serious business losses suffered by the employer. We ruled that
used by the tripartite committee, and agreed upon by the parties, is UIC cites willful disobedience and “loss of confidence” as the
consistent with St. Joseph’s College, including deductions for grounds for dismissing the Respondent Employees. In its termination
“nonpaying students like scholars,” “students who did not pay,” letters dated February 21, 1995, UIC informed the Respondent
“increase in salaries,” and “increases in related benefits.” However,
42
Employees that because of their continued union membership
some of the amounts submitted by UIC were disallowed by the notwithstanding the voluntary arbitration decision, “management no
tripartite committee for being inadmissible and self-serving, based as longer has any trust and confidence in you in the delicate, sensitive
they were on unaudited financial statements. As a result, certain items and confidential position you hold.” 46
in the initial formula no longer appeared in the final computation. Generally, employers are given wide latitude in terminating the
Such disallowance, however, should not be interpreted as a departure services of employees who perform functions which by
from St. Joseph’s College; it simply means that the deduction is _______________
effectively nil because the amounts claimed had not been adequately
proved. 46 Id., at pp. 78-79.
III
454
The resolution of the Illegal Dismissal Case rests upon the
determination of whether or not a confidential employee’s refusal to 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
vacate his or her union membership is a valid ground for dismissal. ANNOTATED
The Secretary and the Court of Appeals believe it is not. We reverse.
As a preliminary matter, we clarify that the issue of whether or
University of the Immaculate
not the Respondent Employees are confidential employees has long Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
been settled and its reexamination is already barred by res judicata. of Labor and Employment
In VA Case No. XI-354-02-94 (the “Arbitration Case”), the panel of their nature require the employer’s full trust and confidence. It is 47
voluntary arbitrators had already determined that the Respondent well-established that an employer cannot be compelled to continue in
Employees are confidential employees who must be excluded from employment an employee guilty of acts inimical to the interest of the
the bargaining unit. The panel’s decision dated November 8, employer and justifying loss of confidence in him. It has been held
48
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee when loss of confidence constitutes a valid ground for dismissal:
against the person of his employer or any immediate member [T]he language of Article 282(c) of the Labor Code states that the
of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and loss of trust and confidence must be based on willful breach of the
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing. trust reposed in the employee by his employer. Such breach is willful
if it is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without
justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly,
thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Moreover, it must be based 58 Supra note 51.
on substantial evidence and not on the employer’s whims or caprices
or suspicions otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the
mercy of the employer. Loss of confidence must not be 457
indiscriminately used as a shield by the employer against a claim that
the dismissal of an employee was arbitrary. And, in order to VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 14, 457
constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be 2015
work-related and shows that the employee concerned is unfit to
continue working for the employer. In addition, loss of confidence as University of the Immaculate
a just cause for termination of employment is premised on the fact Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility, trust of Labor and Employment
and confidence or that the employee concerned is entrusted with normal and routine exercise of their functions, regularly handle significant
confidence with respect to delicate matters, such as the handling or amounts of money or property. … 59
care and protection of the property and assets of the employer. The
betrayal of this trust is the essence of the offense for which an
employee is penalized. 54
Bristol Myers and subsequent cases essentially follow the same
60
57 Cruz v. Court of Appeals, supra note 53; Gonzales v. NLRC, G.R. No. 131653, purposes, the terms “confidential employee” and “employee holding
March 26, 2001, 355 SCRA 195; Sanchez v. NLRC, G.R. No. 124348, August 19, 1999, a position of trust and confidence” are synonymous. Fundamentally,
312 SCRA 727, 735.
the two categories mentioned in Mabeza are simply subcategories of
University of the Immaculate
the broader category of confidential employees.
The essence of the second requisite is that the loss of confidence Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
must be based on a willful breach of trust founded on clearly of Labor and Employment
established facts. Here, it is not disputed that the Respondent
65
employees are not allowed to join the rank-and-file union. In view of 72
Employees refused to resign from the Union, notwithstanding the the limitation imposed upon these specific classes of employees,
decision in the Arbitration Case. Respondent Employees do not claim Article 248(a) should therefore be interpreted to cover only
that they were coerced into retaining their union membership; in fact, interference with the right to self-organization of bona fide members
they even insist upon their right to join the Union. The voluntariness of the bargaining unit. The provision finds no application in this case
of Respondent Employees’ refusal to vacate their union member- which involves confidential employees who are, by law, denied the
_______________
right to join labor unions.
63 Azucena, The Labor Code with Comments and Cases, Vol. II, p. 269, 7th ed.,
2010. B
64 National Association of Trade Unions v. Torres, supra note 61.
65 Bristol Myers Squibb (Phils.), Inc. v. Baban, supra note 55; Standard Chartered Although there is just cause for dismissing the Respondent
Bank Employees’ Union v. Standard Chartered Bank, G.R. No. 161933, April 22, 2008,
552 SCRA 284; MERALCO v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598, January 27, 1999, 302 Employees, we find that UIC failed to comply with the mandatory
SCRA 173. two-notice due process requirement. Under our labor laws, the
employer has the burden of proving that the dismissed employee has
been served two written notices: (a) one to apprise him of the
particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought, and (b)
459 the other to inform him of the employer’s decision to dismiss
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 14, 459 him. The first notice must state that the employer seeks dismissal for
73
2015 the act or omission charged against the employee; otherwise, the
notice does not comply with the rules. The records show that UIC
74
University of the Immaculate sent only one such written notice to Respondent Employees on
Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary February 21, 1995, i.e., a notice of termination effective at the
_______________
of Labor and Employment
ship — which constitutes the “willful act” — is therefore 71 Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, supra note 61; San Miguel
unequivocally established. Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees’ Union v. Laguesma, supra note 67.
72 Supra note 70.
We hold that the willful act of refusing to leave the Union is 73 Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August
sufficient basis for UIC to lose its trust and confidence on 5, 2014, 732 SCRA 22; Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Garcia, G.R. No. 159625,
Respondent Employees. There was just cause for dismissing the January 31, 2008, 543 SCRA 364, 371-372; Challenge Socks Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 165268, November 8, 2005, 474 SCRA 356, 363-364.
Respondent Employees. Our conclusion follows the same reasoning
74 Manly Express, Inc. v. Payong, Jr., G.R. No. 167462, October 25, 2005, 474
why we finally adopted the doctrine that confidential employees SCRA 323, 330; Electro System Industries Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 165282,
should be excluded from the bargaining unit and disqualified from October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 199, 203; Tan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 128290, November 24,
joining any union: employees should not be placed in a position
66 1998, 299 SCRA 169, 185.
involving a potential conflict of interests. In this regard, the Court of
67
Appeals erred in holding that Respondent Employees are allowed to
join the Union. If Respondent Employees were allowed to retain
68
461
their union membership, UIC would not be assured of their loyalty
because of the apparent conflict between the employees’ personal VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 14, 461
interests and their duty as confidential employees. Such a result is 2015
likely to create an atmosphere of distrust between UIC and the
confidential employees, and it would be nigh unreasonable to compel
University of the Immaculate
UIC to continue in employment persons whom it no longer trusts to Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
handle delicate matters. of Labor and Employment
Finally, the Secretary cites Article 248 of the Labor Code to close of business of the same date. We do not agree with UIC’s
75
support his conclusion that Respondent Employees were illegally submission that the agreement to arbitrate and the request to comply
dismissed. Article 248(a) considers as unfair labor practice an
69
with the arbitration decision constitute the “first notice” required by
employer’s act of interfering with, restraining or coercing employees law, considering that UIC was unable to establish by substantial
76
in the exercise of their right to self-organization. However, it is well- evidence that these categorically contain what is legally required to
established that the right to self-organization under the Labor Code appear in the first notice. In fine, we agree with the observation of the
does not extend to managerial and confidential employees, while
70 71
Court of Appeals that the Respondent Employees were hastily
supervisory
_______________
terminated. 77
66 Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Roldan-Confesor, supra note 61. dismissal for just cause remains valid but UIC should be held liable,
67 San Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees’ Union v. by way of nominal damages, for noncompliance with procedural due
Laguesma, G.R. No. 110399, August 15, 1997, 277 SCRA 370, 375. process. Conformably with existing jurisprudence, UIC is liable to
79
68 Rollo, pp. 119-121. pay each of the Respondent Employees the sum of Php30,000.00 as
69 Id., at p. 157.
70 Labor Code, Art. 245. nominal damages.
C
460
460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Notwithstanding our ruling that there was just cause for
ANNOTATED dismissal, we reject UIC’s claim for reimbursement of the amount it
has paid to Respondent Employees for being contrary to established
jurisprudence. The prevailing rule is that an employee cannot be
Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
compelled to reimburse the salaries and wages he received during the
pendency of the appeal, notwithstanding the subsequent reversal of of Labor and Employment
the order of reinstatement. As we held in the case of Garcia v.
80 ters pending before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals,
Philippine Airlines, Inc., “it is obligatory on the part of the employer without having been held in contempt in those previous instances. 87
to Since the facts are not disputed, it is clear that Olvida willfully
_______________ engaged in the unauthorized practice of law before the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals in these consolidated cases. There
75 Rollo, pp. 78-79. can be no question that one who prepares, signs, and files pleadings
76 Id., at p. 83.
77 Id., at p. 121.
in court is engaged in the practice of law. Olvida is not covered by
88
78 G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573. the exception under Article 222(a) of the Labor Code, which only 89
79 Id.; Jaka Food Processing Corp. v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, March 28, 2005, pertains to proceedings before the NLRC and labor arbiters and do
454 SCRA 119. not extend to courts of law. Not being a member of the Philippine
80 College of the Immaculate Conception v. NLRC, G.R. No. 167563, March 22,
2010, 616 SCRA 299. Bar, Olvida had no authority to act as the Union’s counsel in the
proceedings before the Court of Appeals and, now, before us. Under
Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, the act of “[a]ssuming to
be an attorney… and acting as such without authority” constitutes
462 indirect contempt. Accordingly, we find Olvida guilty of indirect
462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS contempt.
We want to clarify, however, that our ruling on indirect contempt
ANNOTATED is the exception rather than the rule. Counsel for UIC ought to know
University of the Immaculate that under the Rules of Court, a charge for indirect contempt must be
initiated through a verified petition, unless the charge is directly made
Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
by the court against which the contemptuous act is
of Labor and Employment committed. In Mallari v. GSIS, we quoted with approval Justice
90
reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the Regalado’s comments on Section 4 of Rule 71:
period of appeal until reversal by the higher court.” 81 _______________
Furthermore, in G.R. No. 151379, we already affirmed the
Secretary’s order to reinstate the Respondent Employees in UIC’s 87 Id., at pp. 1278-1280.
88 Ulep v. The Legal Clinic, Inc., Bar Matter No. 553, June 17, 1993, 223 SCRA
payroll until the validity of their termination is finally resolved. 378.
Respondents correctly point out that the backwages now being 89 Article. 222. Appearances and Fees.—(a) Nonlawyers may appear before
disputed by UIC actually represent Respondent Employees’ unpaid the Commission or any Labor Arbiter only:
salaries pursuant to the order of payroll reinstatement in our previous 1. If they represent themselves; or
2. If they represent their organization or members thereof.
decision. The Secretary precisely ordered the payment of backwages 90 Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sec. 4.
because UIC had been remiss in making payments, despite the
immediately executory nature of a reinstatement order. 82
464
us to, among others, cite Alfredo Olvida in contempt for unauthorized University of the Immaculate
practice of law. UIC alleges that Olvida, a nonlawyer, “has been Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
preparing, signing and filing pleadings before this Honorable Court
and even before the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. Nos. 01396-
of Labor and Employment
This new provision clarifies with a regulatory norm the proper procedure
MIN and 01398-MIN.” In a resolution dated February 11, 2008, we
84
for commencing contempt proceedings. While such proceeding has been
ordered Olvida to file a comment on the motion to cite him in classified as a special civil action under the former Rules, the heterogeneous
contempt. Olvida submitted his comment on April 10, 2008, in
85
practice, tolerated by the courts, has been for any party to file a mere motion
which he did not deny the allegations but justified his acts by stating without paying any docket or lawful fees therefor and without complying with
that he is the Regional Legal Assistant of the Federation of Free the requirements for initiatory pleadings, which is now required in the second
Workers (FFW) and is authorized by the Union to handle the paragraph of this amended section. Worse, and as a consequence of
cases. He also mentioned past instances wherein he prepared and
86 unregulated motions for contempt, said incidents sometimes remain pending
signed pleadings for local affiliates of FFW in mat- for resolution although the main case has already been decided. There are
_______________ other undesirable aspects but, at any rate, the same may now be eliminated by
this amendatory procedure.
Henceforth, except for indirect contempt proceedings initiated motu
81 G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 479, 493.
82 See Castro, Jr. v. Ateneo de Naga University, G.R. No. 175293, July 23, 2014, proprio by order of or a formal charge by the offended court, all charges
730 SCRA 422. shall be commenced by a verified petition with full compliance with the
83 Rollo, pp. 1220-1225. requirements therefor and shall be disposed of in accordance with the
84 Id., at p. 1222. second paragraph of this section. (Emphasis in original)
91
85 Id., at p. 1269.
86 Id., at p. 1280.
One exception to the above rule is that the Supreme Court may,
incidental to its power to suspend its own rules whenever the interest
463
of justice requires, resolve an issue involving indirect contempt
92
motion on the basis of this exception, and only to fully dispose of all
University of the Immaculate
pending issues in these consolidated cases. While we do not condone with. (Rubia vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Fourth
the Division, 625 SCRA 494 [2010])
_______________ Loss of trust and confidence to be a valid ground for dismissal
must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly
91 G.R. No. 157659, January 25, 2010, 611 SCRA 32, 52. established facts. (Sunrise Holiday Concepts, Inc. vs. Arugay, 648
92 People v. Flores, G.R. No. 106581, March 3, 1997, 269 SCRA 62.
93 See Siy v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158971, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 154; Lee v. SCRA 785 [2011])
RTC of Quezon City, G.R. No. 146006, April 22, 2005, 456 SCRA 538; see
also Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Vol. I, p. 898, 9th Revised ed., 2010.
——o0o——
465
VOL. 770, SEPTEMBER 14, 465
2015
University of the Immaculate
Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
of Labor and Employment
initiation of indirect contempt proceedings by mere motion without
payment of the proper docket fees, requiring UIC to file a verified
petition for indirect contempt will only serve to prolong the dispute
between the parties.
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED and
the appealed Decision dated April 24, 2007 and Resolution dated
May 31, 2007 with respect to C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 01398-MIN
are MODIFIED as follows: (1) petitioner’s dismissal of Melanie de
la Rosa, Angelina Abadilla, Zenaida Canoy, Gemma Galope, Paulina
Palma Gil, Lelian Concon, Mary Ann de Ramos, Alma Villacarlos,
Leah Cruza, Ofelia Diapuez and Josie Boston is hereby declared valid
for just cause and petitioner is therefore authorized to remove the
aforementioned employees from its payroll upon finality of this
decision; and (2) petitioner is ordered to pay each of the Respondent-
Employees the sum of Thirty Thousand Pesos (Php30,000.00) as
nominal damages for noncompliance with the mandatory procedural
due process requirements. The Decision and Resolution
are AFFIRMED in all other respects.
Petitioner’s motion to cite Alfredo Olvida for indirect contempt
is hereby GRANTED. Alfredo Olvida is ordered to pay a FINE of
Two Thousand Pesos (Php2,000.00) for assuming to be an attorney
and acting as such without authority, with a STERN
WARNING that repetition of the same or similar offense in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
Finally, the Temporary Restraining Order issued on July 9, 2007
is hereby LIFTED effective immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Villarama, Jr. and Perez, JJ., **
concur.
_______________
466
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
ANNOTATED
University of the Immaculate
Concepcion vs. Office of the Secretary
of Labor and Employment
Petition partially granted, judgment and resolution modified.