|
OFFICIAL STATEMENT Last 9 May
2008, the University of San Agustin received the following: First, the Decision dated 24 April 2008
of the National Labor Relations Commission (Cebu City) in NLRC Case No.
V-12-00011-2007 captioned "University of San Agustin and Rev. Fr. Manuel
Vergara, OSA v. NLRC Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch No. VI, et al." Second, a letter from Prof. Efrain
Francis G. Encanto, Phd to which was attached the Resolution dated 24 April
2008 of the DOLE Bureau of Labor Relations in BLR-A-TR-36-9-17-07 captioned "In
Re: Petition to Declare the Nullity of the 2 August 2006 Election of Officers
of the University of San Agustin Employees' Union-FFW held at the Auditorium of
the University of San Agustin." In the
NLRC Decision, the Commission granted the permanent injunction prayed for by
the University against the decision dated 30 October 2007 promulgated by Labor
Arbiter Rene G. Eņano. In the BLR Resolution, the DOLE affirmed the Order dated
20 July 2007 of Med-Arbiter Joffrey M. Suyao dismissing the Petition filed by
Neil Theodore Lasola seeking to nullify the results of the 2 August 2006
USAEU-FFW election. The Petition was dismissed on the ground that Lasola,
having been terminated in 5 April 2005, had no standing to sue. This lack of
capacity to sue was affirmed by the BLR. To recall,
the USAEU-FFW conducted a strike on 19 September 2003. On 4 March 2005, the
Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 85317, declared the strike illegal. The
Court of Appeals further ruled that the union officers, as a result, are deemed
to have lost their employment status for having participated in an illegal
strike. Accordingly, the University
may, at its option, serve notice of their termination from employment. On 5 April 2005, the union officers were
served notices of termination of employment. The terminated union officers
filed contempt charges against the University President before the Court of
Appeals. The appellate court simply reiterated its earlier ruling that the
union strike was illegal and as a result, the union officers were deemed to
have lost their employment status. The union
officers appealed their termination before the Supreme Court. On 28 March 2006,
the Supreme Court, in G.R. 169632, affirmed in
toto the Court of Appeals' finding that the USAEU-FFW strike of 19
September 2003 was illegal. The USAEU-FFW filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Denied. The USAEU-FFW filed a
Motion to elevate their case to the Supreme Court En Banc. Denied. The Supreme Court then directed that no further
pleading shall be entertained. Eventually, the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 169632 became
final and entry of judgment was made. Two months
following their clear and resounding defeat in the Supreme Court, these
disgraced union officers of the USAEU-FFW, headed by Neil Theodore Lasola,
re-litigated and filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal, unfair
labor practice non-payment of 13th month pay, non-payment of
vacation and sick leaves and damages against the University. The complaints were raffled to Labor Arbiter
Rene G. Eņano. And in a Decision dated
30 October 2007, Labor Arbiter Eņano ruled that the University illegally
terminated Ma. Luz Calzado, Rover John Tavaro, Rene S. Lete, Ramon Gerard
Vacante and Alfredo Goriona and ordered their immediate reinstatement. In ruling
against the University, Labor Arbiter Eņano declared that Ma. Luz Calzado,
Rover John Tavaro, Rene S. Lete, Ramon Gerard Vacante and Alfredo Goriona were
not officers of the USAEU-FFW. This declaration was made notwithstanding that
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85317 and the Supreme Court in G.R. No.
169632 had recognized them to be union officers. This declaration was made
notwithstanding that these very five repeatedly admitted, at times in sworn
documents, that they were union officers. The NLRC in
Cebu City would have none of this lawlessness and immediately put a stop to
brazen attempt of a Labor Arbiter to reverse a long final decision of the
Supreme Court. The NLRC immediately issued a temporary restraining order to
enjoin the union officers' immediate reinstatement. The NLRC thereafter issued
a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining reinstatement while the petition for
injunction was being heard. And now, in its Decision, the NLRC has made this
injunction permanent. The reversal
by the NLRC of Labor Arbiter Eņano's decision is not at all surprising. In its
Decision, the NLRC rebuked Labor Arbiter Eņano and reminded him of the long settled doctrine that quasi-judicial agencies (Eņano included)
have neither business nor power to modify or amend the final and executory
decisions of the appellate courts. Under the principle of immutability of
judgments, any alteration or amendment which substantially affects a final and
executory judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction. In short, these re-litigated complaints for illegal dismissal
should have been dismissed outright by Labor Arbiter Eņano. On the
merits, the NLRC ruled that the termination of the USAEU-FFW officers was legal.
Moreover, due process attended the union officers' termination. The NLRC pointed out that "the dismissed
union officers were terminated only after the Court of Appeals ruled that the
union strike of 19 September 2003 was illegal and accordingly, the union
officers are deemed to have lost their employment status and the University
may, at its option, serve notice of their termination from employment." In
other words, since the union officers' loss of employment status was precisely
litigated before the DOLE and thereafter the Court of Appeals, there was no
reason to ask Lasola, et al. - as they insipidly insisted - to show cause why
their employment should not be terminated after the Court of Appeals precisely
ruled that as a consequence of conducting an illegal strike, they are deemed to
have lost their employment status and the University may serve notice of their
termination. As to the
union officers' termination notwithstanding the pendency of motions for
reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, the NLRC ruled that "we doubt that
this procedural rule [Rule 52, Section 4 of the Rules of Court] can override
the substantive right granted by Article 264 of the Labor Code, in particular,
to declare the loss of employment status of a union officer." The NLRC further observed: "We note that
this issue x x x has been raised before the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court
in CA-G.R. SP No. 85317 and G.R. 169632 respectively. Had these tribunals
deemed this argument meritorious, it would have ruled accordingly in favor of
the union officers." Finally, as
to whether Ma. Luz Calzado, Rover John Tavaro, Rene S. Lete, Ramon Gerard
Vacante and Alfredo Goriona were union officers, the NLRC Decision simply
enumerated the numerous instances in which the decisions of the Supreme Court
and the Court of Appeals recognized them as union officers. The NLRC decision
likewise reproduced the written
admission under oath by these five union officers that they were officers of
the USAEU-FFW at time of the illegal union strike of 19 September 2003. Apparently, it was only Labor Arbiter Rene
G. Eņano who did not consider them to be union officers and proceeded to amend
the final and executory decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 169632 which
affirmed in toto the decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 85317. And the truth
be told: when the NLRC, after granting the request of Lasola, et al., conducted
a hearing in Iloilo City on 7 January 2008 in order to give these disgraced
union officers the opportunity to prove their farcical assertion that they were
not union officers, Neil Theodore Lasola, speaking for his gang, informed the
Hearing Officer sent by the NLRC that they were not presenting any evidence - because they could not. This omission
only shows that when push comes to shove, Lasola and company - including their
coward and traitor of a lawyer who prepared these disgraced officers' pleadings
but did not sign them - simply cannot back their talk. The
University of San Agustin puts on notice that Labor Arbiter Rene G. Eņano will
be held accountable for his decision. That a University personnel, on the
occasion of securing a certified true copy of the Labor Arbiter's decision,
discovered Labor Arbiter Eņano and Lasola, et al. in conference at the privacy
of the Labor Arbiter's office was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's
back. The
University of San Agustin likewise calls on the City Government to finally act
on the University's repeated requests to clear the union garbage along Gen.
Luna Street left by Lasola et al. which is a nuisance to the general public.
This clearing of the strike area should have been done a long time ago
following the Decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 169632. Why is the City Government seriously
entertaining threats of law suits from these disgraced union officers whose
termination from the University of San Agustin was resolved with finality by no
less than the Supreme Court? And any
lawyer - even a law student - will tell you that in order to be a union officer,
you first have to be an employee. How
can Lasola et al. still claim to be officers of te USAEU-FFW when they are not
even employees of the University? Moreover, the chance of the
latest decision of the NLRC being overturned is remote for this would entail
convincing the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to reverse their long
final Decisions in G.R. No. 169632 and CA-G.R. SP No. 85317 respectively on the
very same issue. Neil Theodore
Lasola and his disgraced officers have done nothing but to put a wedge between
the administration and employees. Their continued assertion that they are the
legitimate officers of the USAEU-FFW is nothing but a farce. Ridiculous as
it may be, this continued assertion is the very reason why union dues, agency
fees as well as salary increases arising from tuition fee increase remain in
escrow and cannot be released. The validity of the termination of Neil Theodore
Lasola, et al. has long been settled by the Supreme Court. Labor Arbiter Eņano
however reversed this long final decision of the Supreme Court. The NLRC
Decision as well as the BLR Resolution simply emphasize what everybody already
knows: Lasola et al. belong to a past and painful chapter in labor-management
relations. It's time the University and
its employees move on. It's time Lasola et al. move on. They have neither place
nor business in the University of San Agustin. This Official
Statement of the University of San Agustin is being issued for the information
and guidance of its personnel, students, alumni and the general public. The Administration University
of San Agustin Iloilo City 10 May 2008 |
