G.R. No. L-63122, February 20, 1984
University of Pangasinan Faculty Union, Petitioner, vs. University of Pangasinan and National Labor Relations Commission, Respondents.

FACTS

The University of Pangasinan Faculty Union filed a complaint against the University of Pangasinan, raising three principal demands. First, the union sought payment of Emergency Cost of Living Allowances (ECOLA) for the semestral break from November 7 to December 5, 1981, during which its full-time faculty members received their regular monthly salaries but not the ECOLA. The university refused, invoking the “no work, no pay” principle, arguing the break was not part of the school year. Second, the union demanded salary increases from 60% of the incremental proceeds of a 15% tuition fee increase authorized for the 1981-1982 school year, as mandated by Presidential Decree No. 451. The university had granted an across-the-board increase of 5.86%, but the union pursued the full distribution. Third, the union claimed unpaid salaries for extra teaching loads scheduled for September 21, 1981, a day when classes were nationally suspended. The university asserted payment was made, as reflected in payrolls.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether faculty are entitled to ECOLA during a paid semestral break; (2) whether 60% of incremental tuition fee proceeds must be devoted exclusively to salary increases; and (3) whether the claim for unpaid extra loads on a suspended class day is substantiated.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled partially in favor of the union. On the first issue, the Court granted the ECOLA claim. The applicable decrees (PDs 1614, 1634, 1678, 1713) and implementing rules state that covered employees are entitled to the full monthly allowance if paid their basic wage, with deductions allowed only for unpaid absences. Faculty members are full-time employees receiving regular monthly salaries irrespective of working days in a month. The semestral break is a mandatory work interruption beyond their control, not a voluntary absence. Since they received their basic salaries, the principle is “no pay, no ECOLA”; conversely, with pay, ECOLA is due. The “no work, no pay” principle is inapplicable here, as it pertains to voluntary absences without pay.
On the second issue, the Court also ruled for the union, ordering the distribution of the undistributed balance of the 60% incremental tuition proceeds. Citing University of the East v. University of the East Faculty Association, the Court held that PD 451 mandates that 60% of such proceeds be allocated exclusively for salary increases, and the university’s unilateral grant of a lower across-the-board increase did not fulfill this statutory obligation.
On the third issue, the Court sustained the NLRC’s denial of the claim for extra loads. The NLRC’s factual finding, based on payroll evidence, that payment was made, was upheld. Alternatively, even if unpaid, the “no work, no pay” principle rightly applies to extra loads, which are compensated only when actually performed, unlike regular salaries. The claim involved a question of fact, and no grave abuse of discretion was found. The university’s belated challenge to the union’s legal personality to sue was also rejected.