UE v. Pepanio

facts

·          DECS required college faculty members to have a master's degree as a minimum educational qualification for acquiring regular status.

·          1994 UE and its union executed a CBA with effect up to 1999 which provided that UE shall extend only semester-to-semester appointments to college faculty staffs who did not possess the minimum qualifications.

·          UE hired the two respondents on a semester-to-semester basis to teach in its college. They could not qualify for probationary or regular status because they lacked postgraduate degrees.

·          The two enrolled in graduate studies but failed to finish it.

·          UE extended probationary appointments to Bueno and Pepanio.

·          The Dean of the UE College of Arts and Sciences, sent notices to probationary faculty members, reminding them of the expiration of the probationary status of those lacking in postgraduate qualification

·          Pepanio replied that she was enrolled at the PUP.  

·          Bueno later wrote UE, demanding that it consider her a regular employee based on her six-and-a-half-year service. Pepanio cited her 3.5 years service.

·          Respondents filed cases of illegal dismissal against the school before the LA.

·          LA:  Bueno and Pepanio were regular employees, given that they taught at UE for at least four semesters under the old CBA. The new CBA could not deprive them of the employment benefits they already enjoyed.

·          UE appealed to the NLRC.

·          Bueno and Pepanio questioned the timeliness of the appeal to the NLRC. They pointed to the postmaster’s certification that its office received the mail containing the LA’s Decision on March 17, 2005 and "informed the Office of Atty. Mison right away but they only got the letter on April 4, 2005." Bueno and Pepanio claim that the 10-day period for appeal should be counted from March 22, 2005, five days after the postmaster’s first notice to Atty. Mison to claim his mail.

·          NLRC ruled that old CBA did not automatically confer permanent status to Bueno and Pepanio. They still had to meet the standards for permanent employment provided under the Manual of Regulations and the Joint Order mentioned above.

·          CA reinstated the LA’s Decision by reason of technicality. It held that the 10-day period for appeal already lapsed when UE filed it on April 14, 2005 since the reckoning period should be counted five days from March 17, when the postmaster gave notice to UE’s legal counsel to claim his mail or from March 22, 2005.  

·          Respondents:  petition should be denied since it failed to enclose a certification from the UE Board of Trustees, authorizing petitioner Dean Javier to sign the verification and CNFS. 

Issues/ruling

WON UE’s failure to enclose a certification from the UE Board of Trustees’ to execute the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was fatal

The BOD or Board of Trustees of a CORP must authorize the person who signs the verification and certification against non-forum shopping of its petition. But the Court has held that such authorization is not necessary when it is self-evident that the signatory is in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition.

The verification and certification were signed by petitioner Dean Javier who, based on the given facts of the case, was "in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition."

WON UE filed a timely appeal to the NLRC from the Decision of the LA;

Bueno and Pepanio contend that UE filed its appeal to the NLRC beyond the required 10-day period. They point out that the postmaster gave notice to Atty. Mison on March 17, 2005 to claim his mail that contained the LA Decision. He was deemed in receipt of that decision five days after the notice or on March 22, 2005. UE had 10 days from the latter date or until April 1, 2005 within which to file its appeal from that decision.

UE: period of appeal should be counted from April 4, 2005, the date appearing on the registry return receipt of the mail addressed to its counsel.

For completeness of service by registered mail, the reckoning period starts either

(a) from the date of actual receipt of the mail by the addressee or

(b) after five days from the date he received the first notice from the postmaster.

There must be a conclusive proof, however, that the registry notice was received by or at least served on the addressee before the five-day period begins to run.

The records fail to show that Atty. Mison in fact received the alleged registry notice from the post office on March 22, 2005 that required him to claim his mail. The Court has no choice but to consider the registry return receipt bearing the date April 4, 2005 which showed the date of Atty. Mison’s receipt of a copy of the LA Decision a conclusive proof of service on that date.

Reckoned from April 4, UE filed its appeal to the NLRC on time.

WON UE illegally dismissed Bueno and Pepanio.

Respondents argue that UE hired them when what was in force was the 1994 CBA between UE and the faculty union.  Escorpizo v. University of Baguio a school CBA must be read in conjunction with statutory and administrative regulations governing faculty qualifications.   

UE gave respondents Bueno and Pepanio more than ample opportunities to acquire the postgraduate degree required of them.  

Petition granted. CA reversed.