G.R. No. 125039 November 20, 1998
NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS’ UNION (NAMAWU), JULIETA ARROYO, AGNES DE GUZMAN, CARMELITA RAYMUNDO, SAMMY ISRAEL, GUILLERMO DELA CRUZ, NESTOR VALLESTEROS, NOEL ARANDA, DANIEL RESTORIA, TEODORO CATUIRA, MARCELITA SIERVO, CECILIA OLDAN, LEO RIO, MELINDA ODISTE, EMERITA DELA CRUZ, ARMINA DAGAR, CORAZON GALVEZ, BELEN BUAN, REMEDIOS VASQUEZ, MORENA VELGADO, MA. LUISA AMICAN, MARILOU CANELAS, ANALYN JESUSA, and DIVINA RERNARDO, petitioners,

vs.
SAN ILDEFONSO COLLEGE-RVM SISTERS ADMINISTRATION; SISTER MARIA AURORA LLOREN, (RVM Directress); and THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner NAMAWU is the certified bargaining agent for the rank-and-file employees of respondent San Ildefonso College. Petitioner Julieta Arroyo was the president of the San Ildefonso College Association of Faculty and Personnel (SICAFP), an affiliate of NAMAWU. The other petitioners were teachers and employees of the College. In February 1991, Arroyo, a former tenured teacher who had become part-time, requested to teach full-time, which the College denied. In March 1991, the other individual petitioners, who had yearly appointments, were informed their contracts would not be renewed. In April 1991, SICAFP was formalized as a union affiliated with NAMAWU. On April 11, 1991, the individual petitioners and NAMAWU filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, forced resignation, harassment, underpayment of wages, non-payment of service incentive leave pay, and violation of Wage Order No. IV-1, demanding reinstatement and payment of back wages and other monetary claims. The complaint was later amended to include a claim for tenure pay. On April 15, 1991, NAMAWU filed a petition for certification election, which was unopposed, and NAMAWU was chosen as the bargaining agent. On May 27, 1991, the individual petitioners wrote to the respondents expressing their desire to return to work, but were refused. The Labor Arbiter found the respondents guilty of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice, ordering reinstatement and payment of back wages, salary differentials, and other monetary claims. The NLRC reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice, and deleting the monetary awards except for the service incentive leave pay of some petitioners. The NLRC held the petitioners were not illegally dismissed as their fixed-term contracts had simply expired, and found no substantial evidence of unfair labor practice.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the individual petitioners were illegally dismissed. A corollary issue is whether the respondents committed unfair labor practice.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Julieta Arroyo was illegally dismissed. She had attained permanent status after three consecutive years of satisfactory service as a full-time teacher. Her subsequent acceptance of a part-time appointment did not automatically strip her of this permanent status, as there was no clear and unequivocal agreement to that effect. Her dismissal, based on the non-renewal of her contract without a just or authorized cause and without due process, was illegal. She is entitled to reinstatement and payment of back wages.
Regarding the other individual petitioners, the Court ruled they were not illegally dismissed. They were either probationary or part-time employees with fixed-term contracts. For probationary teachers, their contracts expired at the end of the school year without being renewed, which constituted a termination by operation of law, not a dismissal requiring due process. For part-time teachers, their contracts were for a fixed period and also expired by their own terms. The non-renewal of these contracts was a management prerogative, and the petitioners failed to prove that their union activities were the reason for the non-renewal.
On the issue of unfair labor practice, the Court found no substantial evidence that the non-renewal of the contracts was motivated by the petitioners’ union activities. The proximity in time between the union’s formation and the non-renewal notices, by itself, was insufficient to establish a discriminatory intent.
The Court affirmed the NLRC’s deletion of the monetary awards for salary differentials and underpayment due to lack of sufficient data to compute the claims. The award of service incentive leave pay to specific petitioners was also affirmed.
The dispositive portion of the decision modified the NLRC’s resolution by directing respondent San Ildefonso College to: (1) reinstate petitioner Julieta Arroyo to her former position or an equivalent one without loss of seniority rights and benefits; and (2) pay her back wages from the date of her actual dismissal to the date of her actual reinstatement. The rest of the NLRC’s decision was affirmed.