Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    LABSTAN - University of Pangasinan Faculty Union - Vs - University of Pangasinan

    Uploaded by

    michelle zatarain
    This case discusses whether professors and teachers at the University of Pangasinan are entitled to Emergency Cost of Living Allowances (ECOLA) during semester breaks. The Supreme Court ruled that semester breaks can be considered "hours worked" and that professors are entitled to ECOLA during breaks, as their absence from work is not voluntary. It also ruled that the 60% of incremental tuition fee proceeds mandated by law must be used exclusively for salary increases. Finally, it upheld the NLRC's factual finding that teachers were paid for extra loads in September 1981 based on the evidence presented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    LABSTAN - University of Pangasinan Faculty Union - Vs - University of Pangasinan

    Uploaded by

    michelle zatarain
    57 views3 pages
    This case discusses whether professors and teachers at the University of Pangasinan are entitled to Emergency Cost of Living Allowances (ECOLA) during semester breaks. The Supreme Court ruled that semester breaks can be considered "hours worked" and that professors are entitled to ECOLA during breaks, as their absence from work is not voluntary. It also ruled that the 60% of incremental tuition fee proceeds mandated by law must be used exclusively for salary increases. Finally, it upheld the NLRC's factual finding that teachers were paid for extra loads in September 1981 based on the evidence presented.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    2. LABSTAN_University of Pangasinan Faculty Union_vs_University of Pangasinan

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses whether professors and teachers at the University of Pangasinan are entitled to Emergency Cost of Living Allowances (ECOLA) during semester breaks. The Supreme Court ruled that semester breaks can be considered "hours worked" and that professors are entitled to ECOLA during breaks, as their absence from work is not voluntary. It also ruled that the 60% of incremental tuition fee proceeds mandated by law must be used exclusively for salary increases. Finally, it upheld the NLRC's factual finding that teachers were paid for extra loads in September 1981 based on the evidence presented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    57 views3 pages

    LABSTAN - University of Pangasinan Faculty Union - Vs - University of Pangasinan

    Uploaded by

    michelle zatarain
    This case discusses whether professors and teachers at the University of Pangasinan are entitled to Emergency Cost of Living Allowances (ECOLA) during semester breaks. The Supreme Court ruled that semester breaks can be considered "hours worked" and that professors are entitled to ECOLA during breaks, as their absence from work is not voluntary. It also ruled that the 60% of incremental tuition fee proceeds mandated by law must be used exclusively for salary increases. Finally, it upheld the NLRC's factual finding that teachers were paid for extra loads in September 1981 based on the evidence presented.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    2S LABSTAN Case Digests

    TOPIC Hours of Work AUTHOR #2_Cudiamat

    CASE TITLE University of Pangasinan Faculty Union vs. University of Pangasinan GR NO L-63122

    TICKLER Sem-break and payment of ECOLA DATE February 20, 1984

    DOCTRINE Semestral breaks may be considered as “hours worked” under the Rules implementing the Labor
    Code. Regular professors and teachers are entitled to ECOLA during the semestral breaks, their
    “absence” from work not being of their own will.
    FACTS On December 18, 1981, the petitioner, through its President, Miss Consuelo Abad, filed a complaint
    against the private respondent with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, Dagupan District Office,
    Dagupan City. The complaint seeks: (a) the payment of Emergency Cost of Living Allowances (ECOLA)
    for November 7 to December 5, 1981, a semestral break; (b) salary increases from the sixty (60%)
    percent of the incremental proceeds of increased tuition fees; and (c) payment of salaries for
    suspended extra loads.

    The petitioner’s members are full-time professors, instructors, and teachers of respondent
    University. The teachers in the college level teach for a normal duration of ten (10) months a school
    year, divided into two (2) semesters of five (5) months each, excluding the two (2) months summer
    vacation. These teachers are paid their salaries on a regular monthly basis. Pursuant to this,
    petitioner’s members were paid their salaries for November and December; however, from
    November 7 to December 5, during the semestral break, they were not paid their ECOLA.

    In addition to this, they claim their rights pursuant to Presidential Decree No 541, which allowed
    respondent to collect from its students a fifteen (15%) percent increase of tuition fees, sixty percent
    (60%) of which mandated to be applied for the increase of petitioner’s salary. They also claimed
    payment for the extra workload respondent gave for school year 1981-1982.

    Respondent Arguments:
    • “No work, no pay”, there being no actual work done during the sembreak
    • “the fact of receiving a salary alone should not be the basis of receiving ECOLA”
    • The salary increase mandated by the PD 541 should include other benefits (e.g. ECOLA)

    ISSUE/S
    WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER’S MEMBERS ARE ENTITLED TO ECOLA DURING THE SEMESTRAL BREAK
    FROM NOVEMBER 7 TO DECEMBER 5, 1981 OF THE 1981-82 SCHOOL YEAR

    RULING YES. Semestral breaks may be considered as “hours worked” under the Rules implementing the
    Labor Code. Regular professors and teachers are entitled to ECOLA during the semestral breaks,
    their “absence” from work not being of their own will.

    SEMBREAK NOT CONSIDERED ABSENCE; “HOURS OF WORK” IN OIR OF THE LABOR CODE

    Various Presidential Decrees on ECOLAs to wit: PD’s 1614, 1634, 1678 and 1713, provide on
    “Allowances of Fulltime Employees x x x” that “Employees shall be paid in full the required monthly

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law
    2S LABSTAN Case Digests
    allowance regardless of the number of their regular working days if they incur no absences during
    the month. If they incur absences without pay, the amounts corresponding to the absences may be
    deducted from the monthly allowance x x x”; and on “Leave of Absence Without Pay”, that “All
    covered employees shall be entitled to the allowance provided herein when they are on leave of
    absence with pay.”

    Furthermore, we may also by analogy apply the principle enunciated in the Omnibus Rules
    Implementing the Labor Code to wit:

    Sec. 4. Principles in Determining Hours Worked.—The following general principles shall govern in
    determining whether the time spent by an employee is considered hours worked for purposes of
    this Rule:
    x x x x x x x x x “(d) The time during which an employee is inactive by reason of interruptions in his
    work beyond his control shall be considered time either if the imminence of the resumption of work
    requires the employee’s presence at the place of work or if the interval is too brief to be utilized
    effectively and gainfully in the employee’s own interest.”

    The semestral break scheduled is an interruption beyond petitioner’s control and it cannot be used
    “effectively nor gainfully in the employee’s interest.’ Thus, the semestral break may also be
    considered as “hours worked.” For this, the teachers are paid regular salaries and, for this, they
    should be entitled to ECOLA. Not only do the teachers continue to work during this short recess but
    much less do they cease to live for which the cost of living allowance is intended. The legal
    principles of “No work, no pay; No pay, no ECOLA” must necessarily give way to the purpose of the
    law to augment the income of employees to enable them to cope with the harsh living conditions
    brought about by inflation; and to protect employees and their wages against the ravages brought
    by these conditions.

    On payment of wages as basis of ECOLA

    Implementing Rules and Regulations of Wage Order No. 1 to wit: SECTION 5. Allowance for
    Unworked Days.— All covered employees whether paid on a monthly or daily basis shall be entitled
    to their daily living allowance when they are paid their basic wage.”

    Hence, we have the principle of “No pay, no ECOLA” the converse of which finds application in the
    case at bar. Petitioners cannot be considered to be on leave without pay so as not to be entitled to
    ECOLA, for, as earlier stated, the petitioners were paid their wages in full for the months of
    November and December of 1981, notwithstanding the intervening semestral break.

    NOTES WHETHER OR NOT 60% OF THE INCREMENTAL PROCEEDS OF INCREASED TUITION FEES SHALL BE DEVOTED
    EXCLUSIVELY TO SALARY INCREASE.
    YES. The law is clear. The sixty (60%) percent incremental proceeds from the tuition increase are to be
    devoted entirely to wage or salary increases which means increases in basic salary. The law cannot be
    construed to include allowances which are benefits over and above the basic salaries of the employees. To
    charge such benefits to the 60% incremental proceeds would be to reduce the increase in basic salary
    provided by law, an increase intended also to help the teachers and other workers tide themselves and their
    families over these difficult economic times.

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law
    2S LABSTAN Case Digests
    Benefits mandated by law and the CBA between a University and its personnel may be charged to the 12%
    return on investment within the 40% incremental proceeds of tuition fee increase

    WHETHER OR NOT ALLEGED PAYMENT OF SALARIES FOR EXTRA LOADS ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1981 WAS
    PROVEN BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

    Yes. Factual findings of NLRC that regular teachers were paid for extra loads binding on the Supreme Court.

    2S [AY 2020-2021]
    San Beda University – College of Law

    You might also like