Scribd
Upload
221 views3 pages

UST Faculty Union v. UST

1) This case involves a dispute between the University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU) and the University of Santo Tomas (UST) over UST's alleged failure to comply with the contribution amounts to the medical and hospitalization fund under their 1996-2001 collective bargaining agreement (CBA). 2) The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of USTFU but found no unfair labor practice, while the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the case properly fell under the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator due to issues of CBA interpretation. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision, finding that cases involving the interpretation or implementation of C

Uploaded by

Courtney Tirol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
221 views3 pages

UST Faculty Union v. UST

1) This case involves a dispute between the University of Santo Tomas Faculty Union (USTFU) and the University of Santo Tomas (UST) over UST's alleged failure to comply with the contribution amounts to the medical and hospitalization fund under their 1996-2001 collective bargaining agreement (CBA). 2) The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of USTFU but found no unfair labor practice, while the National Labor Relations Commission affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the case properly fell under the jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator due to issues of CBA interpretation. 3) The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals decision, finding that cases involving the interpretation or implementation of C

Uploaded by

Courtney Tirol
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Tirol

Topic: Guidelines on Arts. 224, 274, and 275


90. UST Faculty Union v. UST
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY UNION v. UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS
Doctrine: [See guidelines provided by San Jose v. NLRC case below.]
Action Sequence: LA ruled in favor of USTFU  NLRC affirmed  CA reversed
Facts: In 2007, USTFU demanded from UST remittance totaling to ₱65M, representing
deficiency in its contribution to the medical and hospitalization fund of UST’s faculty members.
USTFU also sent UST a letter accompanied by a summary of its claims pursuant to their 1996-
2001 CBA.
UST's Rector, Fr. Arceo, informed USTFU that the aforesaid benefits were not meant to be
given annually but rather as a one-time allocation or contribution to the fund. USTFU reiterated
its position that UST is obliged to remit to the fund, its contributions not only for the years 1996-
1997 but also for the subsequent years, but to no avail.
Thus, USTFU filed against UST, a complaint for ULP before the arbitration branch of the NLRC.
UST sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It contended that
the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
arbitrators because it involves the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the
CBA; and the conflict between the herein parties must be resolved as grievance under the CBA
and not as ULP. UST’s motion to dismiss was denied.
According to UST, the parties had, in the past, concluded several CBAs for the mutual benefit of
the union members and UST, and one of these agreements was the 1996-2001 CBA. It is
undisputed that one of the economic benefits granted by UST under the said CBA was the
Hospitalization Fund.
USTFU added that the amount of ₱4M was agreed to be paid by UST to the Hospitalization
Fund annually for the 4th and 5th year of their CBA, pursuant to the parties’ MOA which
embodied the renegotiated economic provisions of the said CBA. USTFU explained that the
rationale is that the economic benefits under the said CBA like the Hospitalization and Medical
Benefits Fund, are sourced from the tuition fee increases and pursuant thereto, UST is obligated
to remit the amount of ₱2M (and Hospitalization and Medical Benefits Fund) not only in the first
year of the CBA but also in the subsequent years because the said amount became an integral
part of the current or existing tuition fee. USTFU claimed that the tuition fee increases once
integrated to the old amount of tuition fee becomes and remains an integral part of the existing
tuition fee.
On the other hand, UST claimed that it religiously complied with the economic provisions of the
1996-2001 CBA particularly its obligation to remit to the Hospitalization and Medical Benefits
Fund as the renegotiated economic provisions under the MOA. It claimed that it was never the
intention of the parties to the CBA that the amounts deposited to the Hospitalization fund for
each year shall be carried over to the succeeding years.
UST maintained that the present dispute should not be treated as ULP but should be resolved
as a grievance under the CBA and referred to a Voluntary Arbitrator.
LA ruled in favor of USTFU. The LA classified USTFU’s complaint as one for ULP, claims for
sliding in of funds to hospitalization and medical benefits under the CBA, damages and
attorney’s fee with prayer for slide-in and restoration of medical benefits under the CBA. The LA
ruled that UST was not able to comply with the 1996-2001 CBA. However, despite UST’s
alleged non-compliance, the LA ruled that UST did not commit ULP. The failure of UST to slide
in yearly the ₱2M hospitalization fund is not violation of the CBA but an error in the
interpretation of the provision of the CBA.
NLRC denied UST’s appeal and subsequent MR. The NLRC pointed out that UST’s refusal to
comply, despite repeated demands, with the CBA’s economic provisions is tantamount to a
gross and flagrant violation. Thus, the present case properly falls under the LA’s original
jurisdiction as well as the NLRC’s appellate jurisdiction.
CA found grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC and granted UST’s petition. The CA set
aside the decisions of the NLRC and the LA, without prejudice to the refiling of USTFU’s
complaint in the proper forum. The CA denied USTFU’s MR.
Issue: Whether the VA had jurisdiction.
Ruling: Yes.
Art. 224 of the Labor Code provides that the Labor Arbiter shall refer to the grievance machinery
and voluntary arbitration as provided in the CBA those cases that involve the interpretation of
said agreements. Article 274 of the Labor Code further provides that all unresolved grievances
arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA, including violations of said
agreement, are under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of
voluntary arbitrators. Excluded from this original and exclusive jurisdiction is gross violation of
the CBA, which is defined in Article 274 as "flagrant and/or malicious refusal to comply with the
economic provisions" of the CBA.
San Jose v. NLRC provides guidelines for understanding Articles 224, 274, and 275:
1. The jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators
over the cases enumerated in Articles 224, 274, and 275 can possibly include money claims in
one form or another.

2. The cases where the Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction are enumerated in
Article 224, and that of the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators in Article 274.

3. The original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters is qualified by an exception as


indicated in the introductory sentence of Article 224 (a), to wit:

Art. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters ... (a) Except as otherwise provided under this
Code the Labor Arbiter shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide ...
the following cases involving all workers..."

The phrase "Except as otherwise provided under this Code" refers to the following exceptions:

A. Art. 224. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters…(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or
implementation of collective bargaining agreement and those arising from the
interpretation or enforcement of company procedure/policies shall be disposed of by the
Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitrator
as may be provided in said agreement.

B. Art. 275. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. – The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other
labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks.

Parenthetically, the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter for money claims is
limited only to those arising from statutes or contracts other than a CBA. The Voluntary Arbitrator
or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators will have original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims
"arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and,
those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies," under Article
274.

4. The jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators is provided for in Arts.
274 and 275 of the Labor Code.

1. A close reading of Article 274 indicates that the original and exclusive jurisdiction of
Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators is limited only to:

"... unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of the


Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement
of company personnel policies... Accordingly, violations of a collective bargaining
agreement, except those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated as
unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. x x x."

2. Voluntary Arbitrators or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, however, can exercise


jurisdiction over any and all disputes between an employer and a union and/or individual
worker as provided for in Article 275.

"Art. 275. Jurisdiction over other labor disputes. - The voluntary arbitrator or panel of
voluntary arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all other
labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks."

The jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators under Article 275
must be voluntarily conferred upon by both labor and management. The labor disputes referred
to in the same Article 275 can include all those disputes mentioned in Article 224 over which the
Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction.
Here, the NLRC correctly ruled that the LA had no jurisdiction to hear and decide petitioner’s
money-claim underpayment of retirement benefits, as the controversy between the parties
involved an issue "arising from the interpretation or implementation" of a provision of the
collective bargaining agreement. The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators has
original and exclusive jurisdiction over the controversy under Article 274 of the Labor Code, and
not the Labor Arbiter.
Despite the allegation that UST refused to comply with the economic provisions of the CBA, we
cannot characterize UST’s refusal as "flagrant and/or malicious." Indeed, UST’s literal
interpretation of the CBA was, in fact, what led USTFU to file its complaint.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition.

You might also like