G.R. No. 101013 February 2, 1993
ABRAHAM B. BLANCAFLOR, ANASTACIO T. MERCADO, LEONARDO DANTES, ANA B. AGAIN, MARVIN B. VICENTE, ROBERTO Z. CALICA, MARYLYN M. KARGANILLA and LYDIA S. YUSAY, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION and ILUMINADO G. VALENCIA, respondents.

FACTS

On March 15, 1983, the president of respondent Gregorio Araneta University Foundation (GAUF) requested the Minister of Labor and Employment to approve its Reorganization, Retrenchment and Restructuring (RRR) Program due to serious business losses. The Minister approved the program on March 29, 1983, with the condition that implementation be without prejudice to employee benefits. Petitioners were regular faculty members concurrently holding administrative positions (dean, department heads, institute secretaries). Under the RRR Program effective January 1, 1984, petitioners were retired but subsequently rehired. Their appointments to administrative positions were extended until May 31, 1988. Upon expiration, their administrative tenures were terminated. Petitioners filed a case for illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, separation/retirement pay, damages, and attorney’s fees. The labor arbiter ruled in their favor, ordering reinstatement with backwages, separation pay, retirement benefits, and damages. The NLRC reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in giving due course to private respondents’ appeal despite alleged late perfection.
2. Whether petitioners were illegally dismissed from service.
3. Whether the termination complied with due process, including the validity of retrenchment, proof of position abolition, and notice.
4. Whether petitioners are entitled to separation/retirement pay under the RRR Program.
5. Whether petitioners were entitled to immediate reinstatement.
6. Whether private respondents are liable for damages and attorney’s fees.

RULING

1. On the perfection of appeal: The NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion. While Article 223 of the Labor Code (as amended by R.A. 6715) requires a cash or surety bond for appeal perfection, this requirement should be liberally interpreted to serve substantial justice. At the time of appeal, no implementing rules existed; the NLRC later required the bond, which private respondents complied with on February 25, 1991. Additionally, the labor arbiter’s decision did not specify the exact monetary award, so the bond amount could not be determined earlier. The Court cited Rada v. NLRC to support allowing the appeal on merits.
2. On illegal dismissal: Petitioners were not illegally dismissed. Their appointments as dean, department heads, and institute secretaries were for fixed terms, as evidenced by contracts expiring on May 31, 1988. The Court, citing Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, upheld the validity of fixed-term employment contracts entered into knowingly and voluntarily, without vitiated consent or unequal bargaining power. Their dismissal resulted from contract expiration, not retrenchment.
3. On due process and validity of termination: The termination was lawful due to contract expiration. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the sub-issues regarding retrenchment validity, proof of position abolition, and notice, as the dismissal was based on a fixed-term contract.
4. On separation/retirement pay: Petitioners are entitled to separation or retirement benefits, whichever is higher, under the 1984 RRR Program. The program’s approval letter from the Minister of Labor required that benefits accrued to employees be respected. The Court modified the NLRC decision to order GAUF to pay these benefits.
5. On immediate reinstatement: Reinstatement is not warranted because the dismissal was lawful due to contract expiration.
6. On damages and attorney’s fees: The NLRC correctly disallowed moral and exemplary damages due to the lawful dismissal. Attorney’s fees were also properly denied, as the case did not involve unlawful wage withholding.
DISPOSITIVE:
The assailed NLRC decision and resolution were AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that respondent GAUF is ordered to pay petitioners their respective separation pay or retirement benefits, whichever is higher. All other aspects are affirmed.