Professional Documents
Culture Documents
UST vs. NLRC, 85519, 15 February 1990
UST vs. NLRC, 85519, 15 February 1990
Facts: Professor Tranquilina Marino was a member of the Faculty of Pharmacy of UST, upon
reaching the age of 65, UST allowed her to continue teaching for the school years 1986-1987
and 1987-1989. However, UST denied her extension of tenure for the school year 1988-1989.
Several other professors from other colleges of UST were also denied extension of tenure upon
The UST Faculty Union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and against UST with the NLRC,
alleging that it violated Sec. 1, Article XII of the CBA, entered into in 1986, which provides
among others: a) that upon reaching the age of 65 years they may be granted extension of
tenure unless they are manifestly inefficient or incompetent or are otherwise removed for
cause; and that b) they shall continue to enjoy the usual benefits and privileges until the
extension of their tenure is validly denied by the university in consultation with the Union or
until they are separated from service. The NLRC dismissed the case for lack of merit. The Union
Issue: WON UST committed ULP in denying the extension of service of Prof. Marino.
Held: No. It is important to state that upon the compulsory retirement of an employee of
official in the public or private service his employment is deemed terminated. The matter of
extension of service of such employee or official is addressed to the sound discretion of the
employer. It is a privilege only the employer can grant.
The required consultation with the Union as provided in the CBA should be interpreted to mean
as one which is advisory in character and as such, the opinion of the Union is not binding on the
UST authorities. The final say as to the denial of extension of a retiree still rests with the
employer, UST.