Case Digest: De la Salle University,

Petitioner, v. De la Salle University

Employees Association
G.R. No. 169254 : August 23, 2012
De la Salle University, Petitioner, v. De la Salle
University Employees Association, Respondent.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS:
On May 30, 2000, some of De La Salle University Employees
Association (DLSUEA-NAFTEU) members headed by Belen
Aliazas (the Aliazas faction) filed a petition for the election
of union officers in the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).
They alleged therein that there has been no election for
DLSUEA-NAFTEUs officers since 1992 in supposed violation
of the unions constitution and by-laws which provided for
an election of officers every three years. It would appear
that DLSUEA-NAFTEU repeatedly voted to approve the holdover of the previously elected officers led by Baylon Baez
(Baez faction).
When the matter was eventually elevated to the BLR
Director, the latter ruled that the Baez factions tenure in

office is valid and subsisting until their successors have

been duly elected and qualified.
Thereafter, DLSUEA-NAFTEU entered into a five-year CBA
with De La Salle University (DLSU). The Aliazas faction
wrote a letter to DLSU requesting it to place in escrow the
union dues and other fees deducted from the salaries of
employees pending the resolution of the intra-union conflict.
DLSUEA-NAFTEU filed a complaint for unfair labor practice in
the NLRC alleging that DLSU violated Article 248(a) and (g)
of the Labor Code. DLSUEA-NAFTEU asserted that that the
creation of escrow accounts was not an act of neutrality as
it was influenced by the Aliazas factionss letter and was an
act of interference with the internal affairs of the union. The
Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for unfair labor
practice.
Subsequently, DLSUEA-NAFTEU sent a letter to DLSU
requesting for the renegotiation of the economic terms for
the fourth and fifth years of the then current CBA. DLSU
denied the request prompting DLSUEA-NAFTEU to file a
notice of strike. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction
and found DLSU guilty of unfair labor practice.
Consequently, DLSUEA-NAFTEU reiterated its demand on
DLSU to bargain collectively pursuant to the
aforementioned Decision of the Secretary of Labor. Again,

DLSU declined the request. Thus, DLSUEA-NAFTEU filed

another notice of strike. The Secretary of Labor cited his
earlier decision and ruled that DLSU is guilty of unfair labor
practice. In accordance with the said decision, DLSU turned
over to DLSUEA-NAFTEU the collected union dues and
agency fees from employees which were previously placed
in escrow.
Aggrieved, DLSU appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The
CA dismissed the petition. When the matter was elevated to
the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the CA. DLSU moved
to reconsider but the Court denied the same. Thus, the
decision attained finality. Meanwhile, DLSUEA-NAFTEU was
ordered to file a comment, and, subsequently, this petition
was given due course.
ISSUE: Whether or not DLSU is guilty of unfair labor practice
when it refused to bargain collectively with DLSUEA-NAFTEU
in light of the intra-union dispute between DLSUEA-NAFTEU
two opposing factions?

HELD: The petition is denied.

Inevitably, G.R. No. 168477 and this petition seek only one
relief, that is, to absolve petitioner from respondents
charge of committing an unfair labor practice, or

specifically, a violation of Article 248(g) in relation to Article

252 of the Labor Code. In other words, our previous
affirmance of the Court of Appeals finding that petitioner
erred in suspending collective bargaining negotiations with
the union and in placing the union funds in escrow
considering that the intra-union dispute between the Aliazas
and Baez factions was not a justification therefor is
binding herein.
The law of the case has been defined as the opinion
delivered on a former appeal. It means that whatever is
once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule or
decision between the same parties in the same case
continues to be the law of the case, whether correct on
general principles or not, so long as the facts on which such
decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case
before the court.
Neither can petitioner seek refuge in its defense that as
early as November 2003 it had already released the
escrowed union dues to respondent and normalized
relations with the latter. The fact remains that from its
receipt of the July 28, 2003 Decision of the Secretary of
Labor in OS-AJ-0015-2003 until its receipt of the November
17, 2003 Decision of the Secretary of Labor in OS-AJ-00332003, petitioner failed in its duty to collectively bargain with
respondent union without valid reason.

Petition is DENIED.