FEATI UNIVERSITY (Petitioner) vs. BAUTISTA and FEATI UNIVERSITY FACULTY CLUB-PAFLU (Respondent) G.R. No.

L-21278 December 27, 1966 reconsideration and resolve the issues raised therein before the case is heard on the merits but denied. FACTS: The private respondent wrote a letter to president of petitioner Faculty Club filed with the CIR in Case 41-IPA a petition to declare informing her of the organization of the Faculty Club into a in contempt of court certain parties, alleging that the University registered labor union. refused to accept back to work the returning strikers, in violation of the return-to-work order. President of the Faculty Club sent another letter containing twentysix demands that have connection with the employment of the Petitioner questions the decision of the Court of Industrial Relations members of the Faculty Club by the University, and requesting an alleging that the said court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when answer within ten days from receipt thereof. The President of the it held that it is an industrial establishment, hence they are University answered the two letters, requesting that she be given employer of the respondent. at least thirty days to study thoroughly the different phases of the demands. They claim that they are an educational institution not an industrial establishment and hence not an "employer" in contemplation of Meanwhile counsel for the University, to whom the demands were Republic Act No. 875; and said act is not applicable to the members referred, wrote a letter to the President of the Faculty Club of the Faculty Club because the latter are independent contractors demanding proof of its majority status and designation as a and, therefore, not employees within the purview of the said Act. bargaining representative. Hence, this petition. President of the Faculty Club filed a notice of strike with the Bureau ISSUE: of Labor alleging as reason therefore the refusal of the University to WON FEATI is the employer of the respondents and are not bargain collectively. The parties were called to conferences but independent contractors? efforts to conciliate them failed. Members of the Faculty Club declared a strike and established picket lines in the premises of the University, resulting in the disruption of classes in the University. President of the Philippines certified to the Court of Industrial Relations the dispute between the management of the University and the Faculty Club pursuant to the provisions of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 875. The Judge endeavored to reconcile the part and it was agreed upon that the striking faculty members would return to work and the University would readmit them under a status quo arrangement. On that very same day, however, the University, thru counsel filed a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground that the CIR has no jurisdiction over the case. The respondent judge denied the motion to dismiss. The University filed a motion for reconsideration by the CIR en banc, without the motion for reconsideration having been acted upon by the CIR en banc, respondent Judge set the case for hearing but the University moved the cancellation of the said hearing upon the ground that the court en banc should first hear the motion for HELD & RATIO: YES. Respondents are not PETITIONERS are employers. independent contractor and the

The Supreme Court denied the petition. Based on RA 875 Section 2(c): The term employer include any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include any labor organization (otherwise than when acting as an employer) or any one acting in the capacity or agent of such labor organization. In this case, the University is operated for profit hence included in the term of employer. Professors and instructors, who are under contract to teach particular courses and are paid for their services, are employees under the Industrial Peace Act. Professors and instructors are not independent contractors. University controls the work of the members of its faculty; that a university prescribes the courses or subjects that professors teach, and when and where to teach; that the professors work is

characterized by regularity and continuity for a fixed duration; that professors are compensated for their services by wages and salaries, rather than by profits; that the professors and/or instructors cannot substitute others to do their work without the consent of the university; and that the professors can be laid off if their work is found not satisfactory. All these indicate that the university has control over their work; and professors are, therefore, employees and not independent