G.R. No. 209516 . January 17, 2023.
Angelina Villanueva, Petitioner, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals, Ninth Division, National Labor Relations Commission, First Division, University of the East, and the Members of the Board of Trustees of the University of the East, namely: Chairman P.O. Domingo, (deceased) and now replaced by Lucio Tan, Jaime J. Bautista, David O. Chua, Josefina Cortes, Corazon Dela Paz, P. Siervo Dizon, Carmelita Mateo, Andres Narvasa, Jose Ngaw, Cornelio Peralta, Wilson Young and Dr. Ester Garcia, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Angelina Villanueva was employed in 1970 as a regular full-time faculty member in the College of Business Administration of respondent University of the East (UE). She optionally retired in 1993 after 23 years of service. Immediately after her optional retirement, she was appointed as College Secretary and later as Associate Dean in the UE College of Law. During her tenure in these administrative positions, she also served as a part-time lecturer in the College of Law under semester-to-semester contracts, with a maximum teaching load of 12 units per semester. These contracts stipulated she was not entitled to benefits available to regular faculty members, including retirement gratuity, under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
In 2005, petitioner compulsorily retired as Associate Dean upon reaching age 65. UE computed her retirement benefits using the current hourly rate of a faculty member in the College of Business Administration with a 24-unit load (PHP 224.51), yielding PHP 627,279.79, which she received. Petitioner sought recomputation, arguing the rate should be based on a regular faculty member in the College of Law with a 24-unit load (PHP 532.35), which would entitle her to a differential of PHP 1,016,610.84. UE denied her request, citing its “One Retirement Policy” (Board Resolution No. 75-8-86), which allows faculty members who optionally retired and were later appointed to administrative positions to have their retirement benefits computed based on either teaching or administrative service, whichever yields higher benefits. UE asserted using the College of Business Administration faculty rate yielded higher benefits than using the Associate Dean rate, and the College of Law lecturer rate could not be used as her engagement there was merely contractual and part-time.
Petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter, arguing she should be considered a regular faculty member in the College of Law under the four-fold test and the ruling in St. Theresita’s Academy v. NLRC, that using the Associate Dean rate contravened the board resolution, and that UE acted in bad faith. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, ordering payment of the differential. The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and dismissed the complaint, holding her main connection to UE was her administrative position, her teaching assignment was contractual and part-time, and she would receive higher pay using the College of Business Administration faculty rate. The Court of Appeals sustained the NLRC. Petitioner filed the present Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

Did the appellate court err in sustaining the NLRC’s ruling that petitioner was not entitled to her requested retirement differential pay?

RULING

No. The Petition was dismissed.
Procedurally, the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy when an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is available. Petitioner’s counsel’s explanation of lack of time due to work volume did not constitute an exception to the rule. A party cannot substitute certiorari for a lost appeal.
Substantively, even disregarding the procedural lapse, the Petition would fail. Board Resolution No. 75-8-86 clearly provides that for optionally retired faculty members subsequently appointed to administrative positions, retirement pay shall be computed based on either teaching or administrative service, at the rate obtaining at the time of retirement, whichever yields higher benefits. Petitioner’s retirement benefits were correctly computed using the current hourly rate of a faculty member in the College of Business Administration, as this yielded higher benefits than using the rate for her administrative position as Associate Dean. Her claim to use the rate of a regular faculty member in the College of Law had no basis. Her engagement as a part-time lecturer in the College of Law was explicitly contractual, on a semester-to-semester basis, and her contracts stipulated she was not entitled to regular faculty benefits, including retirement gratuity. She could not hold two regular plantilla positions simultaneously. Therefore, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion, and the CA correctly sustained its ruling.