|
OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN ON THE COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DECLARING ILLEGAL THE UNION STRIKE OF SEPTEMBER 19, 2003 Today, March 16, 2005, the University of San
Agustin was served a copy of the Decision dated March 4, 2005 promulgated by
the Special Twentieth Division of the Court of Appeals in Cebu City, Cebu in
CA-G.R. SP No. 85317 entitled University of San Agustin v. The Secretary of
Labor and Employment, et al.” The
Decision granted in part the Petition for Certiorari filed by the University. In
its Decision, the Court of Appeals found that the Secretary of Labor and
Employment ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION when, in her decision dated
April 6, 2004 in OS-AJ-0032-2003 she totally disregarded the Report submitted
by her very own DOLE Sheriffs and declared the strike conducted by the
University of San Agustin Employees Union-FFW on September 19,2003 as
legal. In its Decision, the Court of
Appeals has declared the strike ILLEGAL as it found a “deliberate intent” on
the part of the Union to disregard the Assumption of Jurisdiction Order (AJO)
served on it in the morning of September 19, 2003. “The public respondent (Secretary of Labor and Employment)
acted with grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the sheriff’s report
stating that the AJO was considered served as of 8:45 AM of September 19,
2003. Hence, the strike conducted by
the union which lasted until the receipt by their Union president of the AJO at
5:25 PM was clearly illegal. It bears stressing that a sheriff’s report is an official
statement by him of his acts under the writs and processes issued by the court,
and in this case, the public respondent SOLE, in obedience to its directive and
in conformity with law. In the absence
of contrary evidence, a presumption exists that a sheriff has regularly
performed his official duty. To
controvert the presumption arising thereform, there must be clear and
convincing evidence. In this case, private respondent Union was not able to
sufficiently dispute the truth of the narration of facts contained in the
sheriffs’ report. Clearly stated in the said sheriffs’ report is the fact
that the union officers refused to receive the AJO when served to them in the
morning of September 19, 2003. The fact
that there was a Union Board resolution passed on September 16, 2003
authorizing only the Union President to receive the AJO was of no moment,
considering that the standard operating procedure of the Office of the
Undersecretary for Labor relations in serving assumption orders considers such
orders served upon posting of copies thereof on designated places. This procedure was obviously adopted in
order to prevent the thwarting of the AJO by the simple expedient of the
refusal of the parties to receive the same, as what expectedly occurred in this
case. Interestingly, the private
respondent Union’s president was not present during the strike conducted by his
members in the morning of September 19, 2003.
He arrived only at around 5:25 PM. Hence there was a deliberate intent among the private
respondents to disregard the AJO and proceed with their strike, now made
illegal by their act of disregarding said AJO. x x x x x x x x x x x x the AJO was served at 8:45 AM of September 19,
2003. The strikers then should have
returned to work immediately. However,
they did not abandon their strike and instead refused to receive the AJO and
waited for their union president to receive the same at 5:25 PM. The strike therefore which lasted
practically the whole day of September 19, 2003 was clearly illegal. A strike that is undertaken, despite the
issuance by the SOLE of an assumption order, becomes a prohibited activity and,
thus, illegal pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code. Once an assumption certification order is
issued by the SOLE, strikes are enjoined or if one has already taken place, all
strikers shall immediately return to work.
An assumption and/or certification order of the Secretary of Labor
automatically results in a return-to-work of all striking workers, whether or
not a corresponding order has been issued by the Secretary of Labor.” The
disastrous consequence of the illegal Union strike of September 19, 2003 was
likewise spelled out by the Court of Appeals. “The Union officers, as a result, are deemed to have lost
their employment status for knowingly participated in an illegal act. The petitioner, may, at its option serve
notice of their termination from employment.
However, an ordinary striking worker cannot be terminated for mere
participation in an illegal strike.
There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during a strike.” The
Union Officers at the time of the illegal strike were Theodore Neil Lasola,
Flaviano Manalo, Rene Cabalum, Ma. Luz Calsado, Ray Anthony Zuniga, Rizalene
Villanueva, Rudante Dolar, Merlyn jara, Monalisa Bautista, Ma. Connie Alger,
Maximo Montero, Apollin de Asis, Rovon John Tavarro, Alfredo Goriona, Julius
Mario, John Mirasol, Hermenegildo Calzado, Danilo Lee Pac Hee, Nelza Laurea and
Rena Lete. The
University will appeal the portion of the Court of Appeals Decision which ruled
that the Secretary of Labor and Employment did not abuse her discretion when
she resolved the “economic issues” notwithstanding the agreement by the
University and the Union that such matters are the subject of and to be
submitted to Voluntary Arbitration. This
foregoing Official Statement is being issued for the information and guidance
of the Augustinian educational community, the alumni as well as the general
public. THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN Iloilo City, Iloilo 17 March 2005 |
