Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople
Cebu Institute of Technology v. Ople
*
No. L-58870. December 18, 1987.
_______________
* EN BANC.
630
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
631
_______________
* EN BANC.
632
*
No. L-76521. December 18, 1987.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
_______________
* EN BANC.
633
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
634
635
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
636
637
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
CORTES, J.:
* * *
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
SO ORDERED.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
* * *
642
643
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
D. FABROS CASE
644
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
Sec. 42. Tuition and other School Fees.—Each private school shall
determine its rate of tuition and other school fees or charges. The
rates and charges adopted by schools pursuant to this provision
shall be collectible, and their application or use authorized, subject
to rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of
Education, Culture and Sports. (Italics supplied).
7.1 The proceeds from tuition fees and other school charges as
well as other income of each school, shall be treated as an
institutional fund which shall be administered and managed for
the support of school purposes strictly: Provided, That for the
purpose of generating additional financial resources or income for
the opera
645
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
as follows:
After due consideration of the allegations of the petition
dated May 22, 1985 and the arguments of the parties, the
Court Resolved to ISSUE, effective immediately and
continuing until further orders from this Court, a
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER enjoining the
respondent from enforcing or implementing paragraphs 7.4
to 7.5 of MECS Order No. 25, s. 1985, which provide for the
use and application of sixty per centum (60%) of the
increases in tuition and other school fees or charges
authorized by public respondent for the school year 1985-
1986 in a manner inconsistent with section 3(a), P.D. No.
451, (which allocates such 60% of the increases exclusively
'for increases in salaries or wages of the members of the
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
647
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
D. BISCOCHO CASE
The Espiritu Santo Parochial School and the Espiritu
Santo Parochial School Faculty Association were parties to
a labor dispute which arose from a deadlock in collective
bargaining. The parties entered into conciliation
proceedings. The union went on strike after efforts at the
conciliation failed. Subsequently, a return to work
agreement was forged between the parties and both agreed
to submit their labor dispute to the jurisdiction of the
Minister of Labor.
In the exercise of his power to assume jurisdiction, the
Ministry of Labor and Employment issued an Order dated
April 14,1986 which provides for the following:
648
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
SO ORDERED.
(Rollo, pp. 16-17)
* * *
4) x x x
649
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
F. VALMONTE CASE
This Petition was filed by parents with children studying at
respondent school, Espiritu Santo Parochial School to
nullify the Order dated April 14, 1986 issued by public
respondent, then Minister of Labor and Employment,
specifically paragraphs (e) and (f) thereof, quoted in the
Biscocho case.
The award contained in the said Order is the result of
the assumption of jurisdiction by the public respondent
over a labor dispute involving the private respondents
school and faculty association, The latter had earlier filed a
notice of strike because of a bargaining deadlock on the
demands of its
650
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
FIRST SUB-ISSUE
652
employees.
On August 7, 1986, considering the supervening events,
including the change of administration, that have
transpired during the pendency of these cases, the Court
required the Solicitor General to state whether or not he
maintains the action and position taken by his predecessor-
in-office. In his Compliance with said Resolution, the
Solicitor General Manifested the position that:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
tal proceeds shall answer not only for salary increases but
also for other employment benefits. The Union argues that
whereas "Pres. Dec. No. 451 is a law on a particular
subject, viz., increase of tuition fee by educational
institutions and how such increase shall be allocated, B.P.
Blg. 232 is not a law on a particular subject of increase of
tuition fee . . .; at most it is a general legislation on tuition
fee as it touches on such subject in general." [Comment on
Compliance; Rollo, p. 376], Suppletory to its argument that
B.P. Blg. 232 did not impliedly repeal Pres. Dec. No. 451,
the Union also invokes the principle that a special or
particular law cannot be repealed by a general law.
657
658
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 30/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
SECOND SUB-ISSUE
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 31/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 32/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
232 provides:
661
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 34/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
Both P.D. No. 451 and B.P. Blg. 232 deal with the imposition of
tuition and other school fees or charges and their use and
application, although the latter is broader in scope as it covers
other aspects of the education system. We note substantial
differences or inconsistencies between the provisions of the two
laws. P.D. No. 451 prescribes certain limitations in the increase of
tuition and other school fees and their application, whereas the
latter law, B.P. Blg. 232 is silent on the matter. Under P.D. 451,
rates of tuition/school fees need prior approval of the Secretary of
Education, Culture (now Minister of Education, Culture and
Sports), who also determines the reasonable rates for new school
fees, whereas under B.P. Blg. 232, each private school determines
its rate of tuition and other school fees or charges. P.D. No. 451
authorizes the Secretary of Education and Culture to issue
requisite rules and regulations to implement the said Decree and
for that purpose, he is empowered to impose other requirements
and limitations as he may deem proper and reasonable in addition
to the limitations prescribed by the Decree for increases in tuition
fees and school charges, particularly, the limitations imposed in
the allocation of increases in fees and charges, whereas under
B.P. Blg. 232, the collection and application or use of rates and
charges adopted by the school are subject to rules and regulations
promulgated by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports
without
663
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
an act which purports to set out in full all that it intends to contain,
operates as a repeal of anything omitted which was contained in the old
act and not included in the amendatory act." (People vs. Almuete, 69
SCRA 410; People vs. Adillo, 68 SCRA 90) (Ministry of Justice, Op. No.
16, s. 1985).
664
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
666
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 39/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
667
THIRD SUB-ISSUE
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 40/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
the provisions of B.P. Blg. 232. They further argue that the
assailed Order collides with the provisions of Pres. Dec. No.
451 insofar as it allocates 90% of the tuition fee increases
for salary adjustments of the members of the bargaining
unit which exceeds the 60% of the said increases allocated
by the Decree f or the same purpose.
Before delving further into the questions raised, this
Court
669
Biscocho case.
x x x
7.4 Not less than sixty (60) percent of the incremental tuition
proceeds shall be used for salaries or wages, allowances and
fringe benefits of faculty and support staff, including cost of living
allowance, imputed costs of contributed services, thirteenth (13th)
month pay, retirement fund contributions, social security,
medicare, unpaid school personnel claims, and payments as may
be prescribed by mandated wage orders, collective bargaining
agreements and voluntary employer practices: Provided, That
increases in fees specifically authorized for the purposes listed in
paragraph 4.3.3 hereof shall be used entirely for those purposes.
x x x
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 43/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
671
x x x
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 44/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
x x x
x x x
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 47/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
x x x
Simply stated, claims for COLA under P.D. 525, which took
effect on August 1, 1974, for the months of August,
September and October 1974 must be filed within one (1)
year from November 1, 1974, otherwise they shall be
considered prescribed; claims under the same decree that
accrued on or after November 1,1974 should be initiated
within three (3) years from the date of accrual thereof,
otherwise the same shall be deemed extinguished.
Although this particular claim was filed on February 11,
1981, petitioners herein are entitled to COLA under P.D.
525 from February 1978 up to the present since the COLA
that accrued in February 1978 has not yet prescribed at the
time that the claim was filed in February 1981. In the same
vein, petitioners herein should be granted COLA under
P.D. 1123 from
675
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 48/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 51/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
x x x
x x x
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 53/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
13th month pay for lack of merit. The NLRC ruled that:
x x x
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
x x x
681
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 55/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
682
x x x
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 56/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
683
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
684
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 58/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 59/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
686
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 60/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
issued by the then Secretary of Labor are null and void since in
the guise of clarifying the Labor Code's provision on holiday pay,
they in f act amended them by enlarging the scope of their
exclusion.
x x x
687
BISCOCHO CASE
At issue also in this petition is whether the 60%
incremental proceeds may be subjected to attorney's fees,
negotiation fees, agency fees and the like.
The Court notes the fact that there are two classes of
employees among the petitioners: (1) those who are
members s of the bargaining unit and (2) those who are not
members of the bargaining unit. The first class may be
further subdivided into two: those who are members of the
collective bargaining agent and those who are not.
It is clear that the questioned Order of the respondent
Minister applies only to members of the bargaining unit.
The CBA prepared pursuant to said Order, however,
covered employees who are not members of the bargaining
unit, although said CBA had not yet been signed at the
time this petition was filed on November 24, 1986.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 61/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
688
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 63/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
FABROS CASE
In G.R. No. 70832, the Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition is DISMISSED. MECS Order No. 25. s. 1985,
particularly paragraphs 7.0 to 7.5 thereof, which provide
for the use and application of sixty (60%) percent of the
increases in tuition and other school fees or charges, having
been issued pursuant to B.P. Blg. 232 which repealed Pres.
Dec. No. 451, is hereby declared VALID. The Temporary
Restraining Order issued by this Court dated May 29, 1985
is LIFTED and SET ASIDE. No costs.
690
BISCOCHO CASE
The assailed portions of the Order of the Minister of Labor
and Employment dated April 14, 1986 are AFFIRMED.
The collective bargaining agreement prepared pursuant
thereto should, however, be MODIFIED to cover only
members of the bargaining unit. Only petitioners who are
members of the collective bargaining unit, if they accept
the benefits under the resulting collective bargaining
agreement, shall be charged ten (10%) percent of the
payable backwages as negotiation fees. The Temporary
Restraining Order dated November 25, 1986 is LIFTED
and SET ASIDE. No costs.
VALMONTE CASE
The petition in G.R. No. 76596 is DISMISSED for lack of
merit.
Effective September 11, 1982, the application and use of
the proceeds from increases in tuition fees and other
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 64/65
10/14/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 156
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016dcae754f68069df8e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 65/65