Cebu Institute of Technology vs.

Ople
FACTS:
Motions for Reconsideration and Clarification in four of these six consolidated
cases decided by court on Dec. 18, 1987.
1.FABR! CA!"#
$etitioners%&o'ants throu(h counsel insist on the follo)in( *oints#
+1, section -. of B.$. Bl(. ./. did not re*eal section / +a, of $res. Dec. 0o.
-11.
+., there )as undue dele(ation of absolute *o)er to the De*art&ent of
"ducation, Culture and !*orts because no sufficient standards are
enu&erated in section -. of B.$. Bl(. ./..
+/, M"C! rder 0o. .1, series of 1981 is an ultra 'ires act
+-, for&er Minister nofre D. Cor*u2 and for&er $resident Marcos 3d that
$res. Dec. 0o. -11 re&ained des*ite B.$. Bl(. ./..
%other *etitioners in this case also &o'ed for reconsideration on t)o (rounds
that the decision is unconstitutional4 and that B.$. Bl(. ./. is unconstitutional
for 'iolation of the rule a(ainst undue dele(ation of le(islati'e *o)er. Court
reiterates its rulin( that section -. of B.$. ./. +5he "ducation Act of 198.,
has re*ealed $res. Dec. 0o. -11. Further&ore. B.$. Bl(. ./. has set the
standards to be follo)ed by the !ecretary of "ducation, Culture and !*orts in
*ro&ul(atin( the necessary rules and re(ulations to i&*le&ent the la) and
)hich thereby ne(ates any alle(ation of undue dele(ation of le(islati'e *o)er.
$etitioners ex*ress doubt on the a**licability of the three%year *eriod of
*rescri*tion under the 6abor Code. 5here is no doubt that the three%year
*eriod )ithin )hich to file actions in'ol'in( &oney clai&s arise out of an
e&*loyer%e&*loyee relationshi* fixed by Article .9. of $res. Dec. 0o. --.
+6abor Code,, as a&ended, e7ually a**lies to clai&s for the incre&ental
*roceeds arisin( fro& tuition fee increases under $res. Dec. 0o. -11. 5he
clai&s )hich (a'e rise to all these cases are clearly &oney clai&s arisin(
fro& an e&*loyer%e&*loyee relationshi* and thus falls under the co'era(e of
Article .9. of the 6abor Code.