14. Feati University v.

Bautista Without acting on the MR, Judge Bautista set the case for hearing
G.R. No. L-21278, December 27, 1966 on the merits. A writ of preliminary injunction was then filed which
Topic: Definition: Employer & Employee was granted in the first consolidated case (No. L-21278)

Sorry super dami facts 1183-MC PAFLUs petition for certification election praying that it be certified
3 consolidated cases: 1. Feati University v. Judge Bautista and Feati University as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative. A motion was filed asking
Faculty Club (No. L-21278); 2. Feati v Feati University Faculty Club (No. L- the case to be withdrawn since the Case 41-IPA had already been certified by
21462); and 3. Feati University v Feati University Faculty Club (L-21500) the President to the CIR and has absorbed the issues therein.
Facts:
1. President of the respondent Feati University Faculty Club wrote a letter V-30 PAFLUs complaint for indirect contempt of court filed against the
to Mrs. Victoria L. Araneta, President of petitioner Feati University administrative officials of the Feati
informing her of the organization of the Faculty Club into a registered
labor union. The Faculty Club is composed of members who are 1st consolidated case: (No. L-21278)
professors and/or instructors of the University,
2. On January 22, 1963, the President of the Faculty Club sent another The University alleged that respondent Judge Jose S. Bautista acted without, or
letter containing twenty-six demands that have connection with the in excess of, jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, in taking cognizance
employment of the members of the Faculty Club by the University. of, and in issuing the questioned orders in, CIR Cases Nos. 41-IPA 1183-MC and
3. On February 1, 1963, the President of the Faculty Club again wrote the V-30 (three cases mentioned above)
President of the University and on the same day he filed a notice of
strike with the Bureau of Labor alleging as reason therefor the refusal 2nd consolidated case: (No. L-21462)
of the University to bargain collectively.
4. On February 18, 1963, the members of the Faculty Club declared a The University claims that the lower court acted without or in excess of
strike and established picket lines in the premises of the University, jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the petition for certification election and
resulting in the disruption of classes in the University. that the same should have been dismissed instead of having been ordered
5. On March 21, 1963, the President of the Philippines certified to the withdrawn.
Court of Industrial Relations the dispute between the management of
the University and the Faculty Club pursuant to the provisions of 3rd consolidated case: (NO. L-21500)
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 875.
6. Various cases (3) were filed with the Court of Industrial Relations [CIR]. The University claims that the Faculty Club has no right to unionize or organize
as a labor union for collective bargaining purposes and to be certified as a
41-IPA collective bargaining agent within the purview of the Industrial Peace Act, and
The dispute between the University and the Faculty Club was consequently it has no right to strike and picket on the ground of petitioner's
certified on March 21, 1963 by the President of the Philippines to alleged refusal to bargain collectively where such duty does not exist in law and
the CIR. is not enforceable against an educational institution and that that the
On the strength of the presidential certification, respondent Judge certification made by the President of the Philippines is not authorized by
Bautista set the case for hearing. The University, thru counsel filed Section 10 of Republic Act 875, but is violative thereof.
a motion to dismiss the case upon the ground that the CIR has no
jurisdiction over the case because (1) the Industrial Peace Act is Issue:
not applicable to the University, it being an educational institution,
nor to the members of the Faculty Club, they being independent Whether Republic Act No. 875 is not applicable to the University because it is an
contractors. educational institution and not an industrial establishment and hence not an
The MD was dismissed, and on March 30, 1963, Judge Bautista gave "employer" in contemplation of said Act; and neither is Republic Act No. 875
an Order stating that the IPA is applicable. This led to the filing of a applicable to the members of the Faculty Club because the latter are
MR of the University. independent contractors and, therefore, not employees within the purview of
the said Act.[NO.]
 Section 2(c) of R.A. 875: or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment regardless of
The term employer include any person acting in the interest of an whether the disputants stand in proximate relation of employer and
employer, directly or indirectly, but shall not include any labor employees.
organization (otherwise than when acting as an employer) or any one To certify a labor dispute to the CIR is the prerogative of the President
acting in the capacity or agent of such labor organization. under the law (Because the strike declared by the members of the
minority union threatens a major industry of 18,000 students which
o Congress did not intend to give a complete definition of affects the national interest), and this Court will not interfere in, much
"employer", but rather that such definition should be less curtail, the exercise of that prerogative. The jurisdiction of the CIR in
complementary to what is commonly understood as employer a certified case is exclusive. The parties involved in the case may appeal
o Act itself specifically enumerated those who are not included in the to the Supreme Court from the order or orders thus issued by the CIR.
term "employer" and educational institutions are not included; Section 10 of Republic Act No. 875 empowers the Court of Industrial
hence, they can be included in the term "employer". However, Relations to issue an order "fixing the terms of employment." This clause
those educational institutions that are not operated for profit are is broad enough to authorize the Court to order the strikers to return to
not within the purview of Republic Act No. 875. work and the employer to readmit them
o Feati realizes profits and parts of such earning is distributed as The return-to-work order cannot be considered as an impairment of the
dividends to private stockholders or individuals contract entered into with the replacements. Besides, labor contracts
o It embraces not only those who are usually and ordinarily must yield to the common good and such contracts are subject to the
considered employees, but also those who have ceased as special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and similar
employees as a consequence of a labor dispute. subjects

Employee must be one who is engaged in the service of another; who

performs services for another; who works for salary or wages while
workers" are limited to those performing physical labor (teachers are
not included)

Feati controls the work of the members of its faculty

o Prescribes the courses or subjects that professors teach, and when
and where to teach
o Professors' work is characterized by regularity and continuity for a
fixed duration
o Professors are compensated for their services by wages and
salaries, rather than by profits
o Professors and/or instructors cannot substitute others to do their
work without the consent of the university
o Professors can be laid off if their work is found not satisfactory

Moreover, even if university professors are considered independent

contractors, still they would be covered by Rep. Act No. 875

Professors, instructors or teachers of private educational institutions

who teach to earn a living are entitled to the protection of our labor laws
and one such law is Republic Act No. 875.

The term "labor dispute" includes any controversy concerning terms,

tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing,