|
OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN ON THE DECISION DATED 30 OCTOBER
2007 RENDERED BY NLRC LABOR ARBITER RENE G. EÑANO Last 30 October 2007, Labor Arbiter
Rene G. Eñano rendered a decision disposing of ten (10) individual complaints
for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice filed by Theodore Neil V.
Lasola, Merlyn D. Jara, Maximo B.
Montero, Rene S. Lete, Rover John G. Tavarro, Ma. Luz E. Calzado, Ramon Gerard
M. Vacante, Hermenegildo C. Calzado, Ray Anthony C. Zuñiga and Alfredo O.
Goriona against the University of San Agustin and Rev. Fr. Manuel M. Vergara,
OSA. If these names sound familiar,
these are the disgraced Union officers of the USAEU-FFW who were terminated on
5 April 2005 for having engaged in a illegal strike as found by the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court. Lasola, et al., through sympathetic
and irresponsible radio and print contacts who do not even bother to get the
University’s side, have since been crowing and bragging about their so-called
victory with Labor Arbiter Eñano. The USAEU-FFW has even brazenly erected a
banner along General Luna welcoming their new “millionaires.” Accordingly, the University of San Agustin
deems it necessary to release a statement in order that its employees,
students, parents and the public in general will not be fooled and misled by
the on-going media blitz of these terminated union officers. In his Decision, Labor Arbiter Eñano
dismissed the complaints filed by Lasola, Jara, Montero, Zuñiga and Hermenegildo
Calzado. The Labor Arbiter however
found the University of San Agustin and its President guilty of unfair practice
and illegal dismissal in terminating Lete, Tavarro, Vacante, Goriona and Ma.
Luz Calzado. The Labor Arbiter has
directed their immediate reinstatement and has ordered the University and its
President to jointly and severally pay backwages totaling 2.7M and damages totaling a whopping 5.0M. Before any employee or loan shark
entertains the thought of lending money to these five beneficiaries of the
Labor Arbiter’s decision they should consider this: in ruling for Lete, Tavarro, Vacante, Goriona and Ma. Luz Calzado,
Labor Arbiter Eñano declared that these five are not and were never union
officers. In particular, Lete, Tavarro, Vacante, Goriona and Ma. Luz Calzado
were not officers during the illegal USAEU-FFW strike of 19 September 2003.
Accordingly, they should not have been dismissed in the manner the Union
officers were terminated from their employment. They should have been afforded
due process by the University. In so declaring that Lete, Tavarro,
Vacante, Goriona and Ma. Luz Calzado are not union officers, the Labor Arbiter simply closed his eyes to
the following facts and admissions against interest of these disgraced Union
officers: First, before the Secretary of
Labor, Maximo B. Montero, Rene S. Lete, Rover John G. Tavarro, Ma. Luz E.
Calzado, Ramon Gerard M. Vacante, Hermenegildo C. Calzado, Neil Theodore V.
Lasola, Ray Anthony C. Zuñiga, Merlyn D. Jara and Alfredo O. Goriona were
identified and sued in their capacity as officers of the USAEU-FFW but not one asserted that he or she was
not a union officer at the time of the strike. Second, again before the Court of
Appeals, these disgraced Union officers were identified and sued in their
capacity as officers of the USAEU-FFW but
again not one asserted that he or she was not a union officers at the time of
the strike. Third, following their termination
on 5 April 2005, these disgraced Union officers filed a motion to cite the
University and its President in contempt of court. And in this motion, they expressly and categorically admitted that
they were officers of the USAEU-FFW at the time of the strike of 19 September
2003. In their very own words: “5. However, despite the pendency of the
aforestated motions for reconsideration and the undeniable fact that the
decision of this Honorable Court has not yet attained finality, petitioner,
through the University President, Rev. Fr. Manuel Vergara, OSA, in a very
contumacious conduct, in degradation of the administration of justice and the
dignity of the court, and in blatant disregard of the rules (that only final
decisions could be enforced), immediately implemented that portion of the
decision of this Honorable Court which gives the petitioner the option to
terminate the union officers (while keeping mum on the portion of the decision
on the economic issues which this Honorable Court has affirmed), by terminating all the sixteen (16)
private respondents who were officers of private respondent Union (USAEU-FFW)
at the time of the strike on September 19, 2003, effective immediately
upon receipt by them of their respective termination letters, namely: President: Theodore
Neil Lasola Vice President: Merlyn
Jara Secretary: Julius
Mario Asst. Secretary: Flaviano
Manalo Asst. Auditor: Rene Cabalum Bus. Manager: Hermenegildo Calzado Asst. Bus. Manager: Maximo Montero (During
the strike) PCO: Ray
Anthony Zuñiga Rizalene
Villanueva (College of Nursing) Rover John Tavarro (College of Pharm-Med Tech) Ramon [Gerard] Vacante (Teacher’s College) Rudante Dolar (College
of Engineering and Architecture) College
Representatives: Ma. Luz Calzado (Elementary Dept.) Nelza Laurea (High School Dept.) Non-Academic Personnel Rep.: Rena Lete Maintenance Personnel Rep: Alfredo
Goriona” Fourth, in their Petition before the
Supreme Court, these disgraced union officers again categorically admitted that were USAEU-FFW officers at the
time of the strike on 19 September 2003. Again, in their very own
words, “Petitioners Theodore Neil Lasola, Merlyn Jara,
Julius Mario, Flaviano Manalo. Rene Cabalum, Herminigildo Calzado, Ma. Luz
Calzado, Ray Anthony Zuñiga, Rizalene Villanueva, Rudante Dolar, Rover John
Tavarro, Rena Lete, Alfredo Goriona, Ramon Vacante and Maximo Montero were the officers of petitioner USAEU at the time of the strike on
September 19, 2003 and are still the incumbent Union officers.” Fifth, attached to their Petition in
the Supreme Court, was a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed in favor of
Lasola. The very first sentence of the SPA reads: “WE, the undersigned officers-petitioners, all of legal age, Filipinos and with
residence thereunder indicated opposite our respective names, to wit:” And
signing this SPA as “officers-petitioners”
are, among others, Rena S. Lete Rover
John G. Tavarro, Ma. Luz E. Calzado,
Ramon Gerard M. Vacante and Alfredo O. Goriona. Labor Arbiter Eñano
however did not disclose in his Decision that the authority executed in favor
of Lasola was in fact attached to the Petition before the Supreme Court and
this authority was signed by, among others, Lete, Tavarro, Goriona, Vacante and Ma. Luz E. Calzado “in their
capacity as officers-petitioners.” Sixth, on the very first two
paragraphs of its Decision of 28 March 2006, the Supreme Court categorically stated that the petitioners in G.R.
No. 169632, which included Rene S.
Lete, Rover John G. Tavarro, Ma. Luz E. Calzado, Ramon Gerard M. Vacante and Alfredo O. Goriona were USAEU-FFW
officers. “By this petition
for review on certiorari, petitioners University of San Agustin Employees’
Union-FFW (Union) and its officers
seek to reverse and set aside the Partially Amended Decision of the Court of
Appeals (CA) dated August 23, 2005 in CA-G.R.
SP No. 85317. Reversing the Decision and Resolution of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment (SOLE) dated April 6, 2004 and May 24, 2004, respectively.
The assailed CA decision declared the strike conducted by the petitioner Union,
illegal and consequently, the
co-petitioner union officers were deemed to have lost their employment
status. x x x. The facts: Respondent University of San Agustin
(University) is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution which offers
both basic and higher education courses. Petitioner Union is the duly
recognized collective bargaining unit for teaching and non-teaching personnel
of the University while the other
individual petitioners are its officers.” Seventh,
when these disgraced Union officers filed their Motion for Reconsideration in
the Supreme Court, they never
questioned this finding of the Supreme Court that they were Union officers.
To the contrary, their motion for reconsideration is replete with statements
stating that they are union officers. Thus, on page 7 of the motion for
reconsideration, it is stated: “10. For more than a year now, the terminated fifteen (15) Union officers of
the University of San Agustin Employees’ Union-FFW endure [sic] the harsh
weather, day and night, outside the walls of the University of San Agustin.”, and on
page 9, it is stated: “26. The terminated
petitioners-Union officers pinned their hope on this Honorable Highest
Court of the land and last bastion of human freedoms to attain justice for
their long agony caused by the illegal and unjust termination.” IF THESE
DISGRACE UNION OFFICERS NEVER DENIED BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, BEFORE THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THAT THEY WERE OFFICERS OF THE
USAEU-FFW AT THE TIME OF THE STRIKE, IF
THEY IN FACT ALLEGED UNDER OATH AND THEREFORE ADMITTED BEFORE THE COURT OF
APPEALS AND BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT THAT THEY WERE OFFICERS OF THE USAEU-FFW
AT THE TIME OF THE STRIKE OF 19 SEPTEMBER 2003, WHICH ADMISSION AMOUNTS TO NO
LESS THAN A JUDICIAL ADMISSION AGAINST INTEREST, IF THE SUPREME COURT FOUND
THAT THEM TO BE OFFICERS OF THE USAEU-FFW,
AND IF THEY EXECUTED A SPECIAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY AS UNION OFFICERS IN FAVOR OF THE UNION PRESIDENT AND
ATTACHED THIS TO THEIR PETITION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, WHAT BUSINESS DID LABOR ARBITER RENE G.
EÑANO HAVE TO RULE OTHERWISE? At this point, the University finds
apt the following words of its patron: “Just as it is not anyone’s advantage to
open his or her eyes in the dark, it is of no purpose to be in the light if we
have our eyes tightly shut.” Indeed, what was the use of furnishing the Labor
Arbiter all these decisions and pleadings
if these were only to be met by “shut eyes.” The University of San Agustin has timely
appealed the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. In the meantime, considering that the
reinstatement portion of the Decision is self-executory, the University of San
Agustin has been presented with an interesting dilemma: whether to abide by the
Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. 169632 unanimously concurred in by five
magistrates including no less than the present Chief Justice or the decision of
Labor Arbiter Rene G. Eñano to the contrary? Needless to state, the Labor
Arbiter will be held accountable for his Decision. The University of San Agustin trusts
that the foregoing statement puts into proper perspective the Decision dated 30
October 2007 of Labor Arbiter Rene G. Eñano and any claim of “victory” by these
disgraced Union officers. THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN Iloilo City, 3 December 2007 |
