Holy Cross of Davao College v.

Holy Cross of Davao Faculty Union-KAMAPI

Topic: The Collective Bargaining Agreement – Doubt or Ambiguity in the CBA

Petitioners: Holy Cross of Davao College Inc.

Case Summary: Jean Legaspi was the grantee of a scholarship grant offered by a prestigious Japanese institution.
She asked the school for a study leave with grant-in-aid plus allowance, pursuant to Sec. 1 Art. XIII of her union
and the school’s CBA. The school, however, denied such request and only granted her leave without pay. The
union then brought up the issue to the grievance committee, then to the NCMB, then the issue was up for voluntary
arbitration. From the VA up to the SC, all bodies rendered a decision in favor of Legaspi. The SC ultimately stated
that the provisions of the CBA are clear and are free from ambiguity; therefore, it should be followed. Having said
this, Legaspi should be reimbursed the amount that should have been given to her when she applied for the study
leave.

Facts:
 June, 1997: Petitioner and respondent union executed a CBA providing for a faculty development scholarship
for academic teaching personnel
 January 16, 1998: Petitioner received a letter of invitation for the 1999 Monbusho scholarship grant; an In-
Service Training for Teachers, offered and sponsored by the Japanese Government through the Japan
Information and Cultural Center
o This prompted Jean Legaspi, a permanent English teacher in the high school to submit her application
 March 31, 1999: Petitioner issued a policy statement and guidelines on educational trips for SY98-99
 August 25, 1999: JICC informed Legaspi that she was selected as a recipient of the scholarship
o Legaspi then requested Petitioner to allow her to be on study leave with grant-in aid equivalent to her
18 months salary and allowance, pursuant to Sec. 1 Art. XIII of the CBA
 Petitioner denied the request, claiming that she is NOT entitled to the grant under its “Policy
Statement and Guidelines for Trips Abroad for Professional Growth”
 Petitioner nevertheless granted her 12 months study leave without pay
 Before Legaspi left for Japan, she asked Respondent to submit the issue to the grievance committee; however,
the same was not settled
 Respondent then filed a complaint for payment of grant-in aid against petitioner with the NCMB in Davao City
o The parties submitted the case for voluntary arbitration
 March 26, 2001: the VA rendered a decision in favor of Legaspi, and ordered Petitioner to pay respondent’s
member her grant-in aid benefts
o Petitioner filed a MFR  DENIED
 CA: Affirmed the decision of the VA
o “The terms of the CBA are clear and leave little room for further interpretation. In this case, the
provision on faculty development operated both to grant and limit the rights of the parties.”
o Petitioner contends that the CBA specifies “substantive conditions” for availment of the benefit
 (1) that the course be related to her functions with the school, and (2) that it must be in the
pursuit of a higher degree
o The school contends that none of these conditions were satisfied by the Monbusho scholarship because
the training will be conducted in a foreign language and will only lead to the grant of a certificate of
completion and not a masters or higher degree
o The CA stated that it was the Petitioner’s president herself who encouraged the faculty to undergo an
in-service training in a premier foreign institution. In addition, the school itself encouraged the faculty
members to apply
o The CA also stated that more importantly, an examination of the contents of the course manifests its
relevance to Legaspi’s work with the school
  The course included lessons on the ff.: (a) Educational Management; (b) Methods of
Education; (c) Study of Special Subjects; and (d) Observation Study
 Obviously, all of which were enumerated relates to enhancing Legaspi’s effectiveness as a
teacher  the fact that the medium of instruction is Japanese does not negate the program’s
relevance to Legaspi’s work as an English teacher
o Further, while no degree but only a certificate will be conferred on Legaspi, she should not be barred
from availing of the benefits under the CBA
 Indeed, the CBA merely states ‘higher studies’ and did not specific to which trainings it should
apply  if the CBA intended for said statement to be confined to just grants which formally
give degrees, then the agreement should have stated so
 The term ‘higher studies’ is so broad as to include programs that would grant certificates, and
not just degrees
 The certificate which is granted by a premier foreign institute is an added higher
qualification in favor of Legaspi

Issues + Held:
1. W/N Legaspi is entitled to grant-in aid benefits – YES
 Any doubt or ambiguity in the CBA between management and the union members should be resolved in
favor of the latter.  This is pursuant to Art. 1702 of the NCC which provides: “In case of doubt, all labor
legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.”
 Sec. 1, Art. XIII of the CBA – Faculty Development. It has always been the policy of the Holy Cross of Davao
College that academic teaching personnel must develop within their areas of competence and in so doing have
exercised its prerogative to demand that academic teaching personnel take the necessary measure to effect their
upgrading higher academic degree. In view thereof, the Management shall grant to all academic personnel a
grant-in-aid program, where the academic teaching personnel, whenever scholarship opportunities should
arise, be afforded a leave of absence to further their studies in Institutions of Higher Learning with a grant-
in-aid equivalent to their salary and allowance… with certain conditions:
o That the teaching personnel grantee shall finish his/her scholarship within the time frame of the grant,
unless prevented by some causes beyond his/her control
o That the grantee shall sign a contract with the Holy Cross of Davao College to serve therein for at least
2 years for every year of scholarship study
o That should he/she fail to comply with the conditions, he/she shall reimburse the school with all the
amount he/she has received during the pendency of the grant together with all interest thereon allowed
by law
o That the employee is the official representative of the school upon recommendation of the office head.
As such, he/she receives regular salary. (I assume this was included to show that the grantee must be
a regular employee)
 The provisions state that academic teacher personnel, like Legaspi, as recipient of a scholarship grant are entitled
to a leave of absence with a grant-in-aid equivalent to their monthly salary and allowance  provided that such
grant is to promote their professional growth or to enhance their studies in institutions of higher learning
o SUCH PROVISIONS NEED NO INTERPRETATION FOR THEY ARE CLEAR. Contracts
which are not ambiguous are to be interpreted according to their literal meaning and not beyond
their obvious intendment

Ruling: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision and Resolution of the CA are affirmed.