[Labor2] | [Bargaining Procedure-Duty to Bargain] 1

[Digest maker]

Faculty Association of MAPUA v CA & MAPUA

[GR NO. 164060] | [15 June 2007] | [Quisumbing, J.]
Petitioner: Faculty Association of Mapua Institute of Technology (FAMIT)
Respondents: CA and Mapua Institute of Technology

CASE SUMMARY
Private respondent developed a new faculty ranking and compensation system. It was
presented to FAMIT in the 5th CBA negotiation meeting where in FAMIT agreed to its
adoption and implementation on the condition that there should be no diminution in
rank and pay of the faculty. Such ranking was incorporated into the new CBA. After a
month, MIT sent a letter to FAMIT, because of alleged flaws or omissions in the CBA,
which was rejected by FAMIT, averring that the changes would constitute a violation of
the CBA. Meanwhile, Mapua changed its curriculum which resulted in changes in the
number of hours for certain subjects. Consequently, Mapua adopted a new formula for
determining the pay rates of the high school faculty. FAMIT opposed the changes, and
averred that MIT has not been implementing provisions of the 2001 CBA. The issue
was brought to the NCMB which submitted the case to the Panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators. The panel ruled in favor of FAMIT but this was reversed on appeal at the
CA. SC held that Mapua cannot unilaterally change and alter provisions of the CBA.
Until a new CBA is executed by the parties, they are duty-bound to keep the status
quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing
agreement. Moreover, the labor code is specific in stating that in case of doubt in the
interpretation of the CBA, such interpretation that is favorable to labor prevails.

FACTS
Private Respondent Mapua hired Arthur Andersen to develop a faculty ranking
and compensation system
In the 5th CBA negotiation meeting, Mapua presented the new system to
petitioner FAMIT.
FAMIT agreed to the adoption and implementation of the instrument,
with the reservation that there should be no diminution in rank and pay
of the faculty.
A few months later, FAMIT and Mapua entered into a new CBA, incorporating the
new ranking for the college faculty
Sec 8, Art V states that, A new faculty ranking shall be
implement in June 2001. However, there shall be no diminution
in the existing rank and the policy same rank, same pay shall
apply.
When the CBA took effect, the VP for Academic Affairs issued a memorandum to
all deans and subject chairs to evaluate and re-rank the faculty using the new
ranking instrument.1

1 Eight factors were to be considered: (1) educational attainment; (2) professional

honors received; (3) relevant training; (4) relevant professional experience; (5)
scholarly work and creative efforts; (6) award winning works; (7) officership in relevant
technical and professional organizations; and (8) administrative positions held at
Mapua.
 After a month, Mapua requested for an amendment of CBA annexes containing
the Faculty Ranking Sheet, College Faculty Rates for Permanent Faculty Only,
and HS Faculty Rates for Permanent Faculty Only. Mapua claimed that there
contained data that were not germane to other columns and that the Faculty
Ranking Point Range sheet was inadvertently not attached to the CBA.
MITs perceived flaws or omissions in the CBA was rejected by FAMIT, averring
that these changes would constitute a violation of the ratified 2001 CBA and
result in the diminution of rank and benefits of FAMIT college faculty. Proposed
amendment in the ranking system revised the point ranges earlier agreed upon
by the parties and expands the 19 faculty ranks to 23.
Meanwhile, Mapua changed its curriculum which resulted in changes in the
number of hours for certain subjects. Consequently, Mapua adopted a new
formula for determining the pay rates of the high school faculty.2
FAMIT opposed the changes, and averred that MIT has not been implementing
provisions of the 2001 CBA.3
After they failed to settle this issue, FAMIT brought the matter to be NCMB for
mediation. Upon submission to the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, private
respondent was ordered to implement the agreed upon point range system with
19 faculty ranks and to comply with the CBA provision.
CA reversed such ruling,

ISSUE
1. WON private respondent may properly, legally and validly amend
unilaterally CBA provisions it had ratified and enforced NO

RATIO
1. WON private respondent may properly, legally and validly amend
unilaterally CBA provisions it had ratified and enforced NO
a. In light of the existing CBA, the new point range system proposed by
Mapua is an unauthorized modification. It is made up of a faculty
classification that is substantially different from the one originally
incorporated in the current CBA between the parties. The proposed
system contravenes the existing provisions of the CBA and is violative of
the law between the parties.
b. The evaluation system differs from past evaluation practices such that the
system can lead to a demotion in rank for a faculty member, which is a
violation of Sec 8, Art V of the CBA. Until a new CBA is executed by
the parties, they are duty-bound to keep the status quo and to
continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the

2 Rate/Load x Total Teaching Load = Salary where total teaching load equals number
of classes multiplied by hours of service per week divided by 3 hours

3 Section 2. The INSTITUTE shall pay the following rate per load for high school faculty according to
corresponding faculty rank, to wit: 25% increase in per rate/load for all high school faculty members
effective November 2000;

10% increase in per rate/load for all permanent high school faculty members effective June 2001
 [Labor2] | [Bargaining Procedure-Duty to Bargain] 3
[Digest maker]

existing agreement. The law does not provide for any exception nor
qualification on which economic provisions are to retain its force and
effect thus, it must be understood as encompassing all the terms and
conditions in the agreement.
c. The CBA must be respected as its provisions constitute the law between
the parties. It is the norm of conduct between the parties and compliance
is expressly mandated by the law.
d. There is no room for the unilateral change by Mapua. The Labor Code is
specific in enunciating that in case of doubt in the interpretation of any
law or provisions affecting labor, such should be interpreted in favor of
labor.

DECISION
Petition granted. CA decision reversed and set aside. The decision of
the Office of the Voluntary Arbitrators is reinstated.