Far Eastern University v Cir

FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY v. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS (PACUP) and TOMAS N. AGUIRRE G.R. No. L-17620

August 31, 1962

Ponente: CONCEPCION, J.: Case: An appeal by certiorari, taken by the Far Eastern University (“University”) from the resolution of the Court of Industrial Relations (“CIR”) sitting en banc, modifying a decision of one of the Judges of CIR. FACTS (as taken from the CIR decision): 1. Tomas N. Aguirre became a faculty member of the University in 1948, and first employed at the rate of P6.00 per hour and then was contracted to teach in the Boys' High School Department in the same university at the rate of P30.00 per class, earning an average of P500.00 to P600.00 a month. Aguirre joined the PACUP, a legitimate labor organization in June 1953. In July or August, 1953, upon orders of the president of the PACUP, Jose M. Hernandez, Aguirre began to campaign and recruit members for the PACUP. As a result of his efforts in campaigning for membership, he was able to influence seven members from the faculty of the university. 2. In his campaign for membership, he approached practically all of the faculty members of the University’s Institute of Education and some from the Arts and Sciences, Business Administration and Finance, but most of them were afraid to join the union. They were afraid of any retaliation because of their joining the union. 3. In 1953, the University formed a committee classifying the faculty members as full-time or not. Aguirre was classified as a full time instructor with a fixed compensation of P450.00 a month, effective September 1, 1953. Aguirre was compensated (however decreasing) from 1953-1954. But in June 1954, the University stopped giving him teaching assignments. Aguirre’s claim: the University no longer gave him teaching assignments due to his union activities. Other members of the faculty who were younger than him in terms of years of service and who were not part of the union were still given teaching assignments. University’s claim: Not giving him teaching assignment was due to the fact that there has been a decrease in the enrolment of the school.

4. Aguirre brought charges against the University before the Department of Education when his teaching load was reduced. The Director of Private Schools decided in favour of Aguirre and directed the respondent to pay the salary differential which Aguirre fail to earn from December 1, 1953 to 1954 and to give Aguirre assignment in the college department during the first semester of the current school year under the same condition before his teaching load was reduced. The Secretary of Education affirmed the decision and subsequently, the Executive Secretary, by authority of the President of the Philippines affirmed the decision of the previous offices. 5. In the meantime, Aguirre began teaching in the Philippine College of Commerce with an income of P100.00 a month and on November 17, 1955, he began working as a permanent employee in the Central Bank of the Philippines with a compensation of P3,600.00 per annum. 6. At the instance of the Philippine Association of Colleges and University Professors, hereafter referred to as the PACUP, and/or Tomas N. Aguirre, on September 28, 1954, an Acting Prosecutor of the Court of Industrial Relations (“CIR”) filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the University. The CIR ruling: 1. University is guilty of unfair labor practice 2. Pay salary differential due him from December 1, 1953 to May 31, 1954, based on Aguirre's salary of P450.00 a month 3. Pay back wages at the same rate, from June 1, 1954 to November 17, 1955, after deducting therefrom the compensation paid to him by the Philippine College of Commerce from June 1, 1955 to November 17, 1955. 4. Cease and desist from further committing unfair labor practices. No reinstatement, since the current employment is substantial equivalent of his position as full time instructor in said University. CIR en banc ruling: 1. Affirmed CIR Judge Martinez’s ruling.

2. But ruled that current employment is not substantial equivalent to his foremer position in the University. Hence this present appeal by certiorari taken by the University. ISSUE: WON his current employment at Philippine College of Commerce and in the Central Bank of the Philippines is substantial RULING: 1. The Court could not consider the contention of the University that the laying off was due to decrease enrolment (and income) when the figures of the school showed that its income was steadily increasing. Also the fact that he was a fulltime professor not given any teaching assignments could not be reconciled by the court. 2. The Court could only think that the change of status of Aguirre from a fulltime professor to a reserve instructor was due to the fact that, based on the evidence, Aguirre campaigned for union membership among the professors, instructors and teachers of the University, and the further fact, that other full time instructors similarly situated but are not union members did not suffer the same facts of abrupt reduction in their teaching load and salary. 3. Ordinarily, back wages are granted whenever there is a finding of a commission of unfair labor practices. 4. Although Mr. Aguirre was, not a professor, but a full time instructor in the University, we agree with the opinion of the lower court, sitting en banc. 5. The fact that Aguirre was a Tagalog teacher, his position as researcher in the Central Bank has no future for him. The situation would perhaps have been different had his line been economics. Inasmuch, however, as Mr. Aguirre has especialized in the Tagalog dialect, his work as a researcher in the Central Bank is inferior to his job as full time instructor in the University, not so much because his salary in the latter is substantially bigger, even if we add thereto his emoluments in the Philippine College of Commerce, but, specially, because of the future his position as instructor in the University offers him as a career, which is non-existent in the Central Bank. 6. Petition of the University is DENIED. Decision of CIR en banc affirmed.