G.R. No. L-13054, December 26, 1958
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., petitioners, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

On September 4, 1956, the University of the Philippines Employees’ Welfare Association (UPEWA) and its member Tomas C. Tolibas filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the University of the Philippines, the U.P. College of Agriculture, and Prof. Dioscoro L. Umali with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR). The complaint alleged that Prof. Umali interfered with and coerced employees in their right to self-organization and that respondents conspired to refuse Tolibas’s reappointment and separated him from service on July 1, 1956, constituting unfair labor practice under Republic Act No. 875 . The CIR, after investigation and hearing, issued an order on July 8, 1957, directing the reinstatement of Tolibas with back pay and enjoining respondents from discouraging union affiliation. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration, raising issues of jurisdiction (arguing the CIR had no jurisdiction over a government instrumentality like U.P. and over a case not involving an industrial dispute) and contesting the factual findings. The CIR en banc denied the motion. Respondents then petitioned for review. The CIR found that Tolibas’s non-reappointment was due to his union activities and discrimination by Prof. Umali. However, evidence showed Tolibas was first employed on June 24, 1953, through Prof. Umali’s intercession, under temporary appointments renewable yearly, funded by Cornell Funds. For the fiscal year 1956-1957, the Cornell allotment was reduced, forcing the Plant Breeding Division to lay off four laborers, including Tolibas, who was not recommended for reappointment due to unsatisfactory work. The other three laid-off laborers were non-union members, while retained laborers were union members.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Industrial Relations erred in ordering the reinstatement of Tomas C. Tolibas based on a finding of unfair labor practice, given that he was a temporary employee whose appointment was not renewed due to a reduction in funds.

RULING

The Supreme Court set aside the CIR’s order. The Court held that Tolibas, as a temporary employee, had no fixed tenure, and his employment could be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power without need to show cause, as supported by precedents such as Mendez vs. Ganzon and Villanosa, et al. vs. Alera, et al. The Court found that the university authorities were justified in separating Tolibas due to the discontinuation of funds for his position, which necessitated a reduction in personnel. Since Tolibas’s separation was valid on this ground, the Court deemed it unnecessary to address the issues of unfair labor practice or the CIR’s jurisdiction. The order for reinstatement was therefore reversed.