GR 89885; (August, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 89885, August 6, 1990
UST FACULTY UNION, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, NORBERTO CASTILLO, NORMA LERMA, TERESITA CENDANA and DIONISIO CABEZON, respondents.
FACTS
The UST Faculty Union and the University of Santo Tomas entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) stipulating a compulsory retirement age of 65. The CBA further provided that faculty members reaching 65 “may be granted extension of tenure” unless physically incapacitated or inefficient, and that they shall enjoy benefits “until the extension of their tenure is validly denied by the UNIVERSITY in consultation with the UNION.” Professor Tranquilina Mariño reached 65 in 1986, was granted extensions for two school years, but was denied an extension for the 1988-1989 school year. Similar denials affected other professors, including Francisco Bonifacio.
The Union filed an unfair labor practice complaint, alleging UST violated the CBA by denying extensions without the required consultation. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC dismissed the complaint. The Union elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari, arguing the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by rendering the CBA’s consultation clause nugatory and allowing UST to unilaterally modify the agreement.
ISSUE
Did the University of Santo Tomas commit unfair labor practice by denying the extension of service to retired faculty members without consulting the Union as stipulated in the CBA?
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that UST did not commit unfair labor practice and the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The legal logic centers on the interpretation of the CBA provision and the nature of post-retirement extension. The Court clarified that reaching the compulsory retirement age of 65 effects a termination of employment. Any extension of service thereafter is a privilege granted at the sole discretion of the employer, not a right of the employee.
The clause requiring the university to deny an extension “in consultation with the UNION” was interpreted as merely advisory. The final decision on whether to extend a retiree’s service rests with UST. The Court found valid grounds for the denials: Professor Mariño did not formally apply for an extension as required by UST’s internal guidelines, and her subjects were not so specialized as to necessitate her continued service. For other professors, reasons included failure to apply, existence of an administrative case, or being over the age of 70—a cut-off set by university rules. Since the separations were deemed valid under these circumstances, the requirement for consultation with the Union was rendered unnecessary. The employer’s prerogative to set reasonable conditions for the grant of a privilege was upheld.