UST Faculty Union vs NLRC

UST Faculty Union vs. NLRC G.R. No. 89885 August 6, 1990 Facts: Professor Tranquilina Marino was a member of the Faculty of Pharmacy of UST, upon

reaching the age of 65, UST allowed her to continue teaching for the school years 1986-1987 and 1987-1989. However, UST denied her extension of tenure for the school year 1988-1989. Several other professors from other colleges of UST were also denied extension of tenure upon reaching the age of 65. The UST Faculty Union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and against UST with the NLRC, alleging that it violated Sec. 1, Article XII of the CBA, entered into in 1986, which provides among others: a) that upon reaching the age of 65 years they may be granted extension of tenure unless they are manifestly inefficient or incompetent or are otherwise removed for cause; and that b) they shall continue to enjoy the usual benefits and privileges until the extension of their tenure is validly denied by the university in consultation with the Union or until they are separated from service. The NLRC dismissed the case for lack of merit. The Union filed an appeal which was also denied. Hence, this petition. Issue: WON UST committed ULP in denying the extension of service of Prof. Marino. Held: No. It is important to state that upon the compulsory retirement of an employee of

official in the public or private service his employment is deemed terminated. The matter of extension of service of such employee or official is addressed to the sound discretion of the employer. It is a privilege only the employer can grant. The required consultation with the Union as provided in the CBA should be interpreted to mean as one which is advisory in character and as such, the opinion of the Union is not binding on the UST authorities. The final say as to the denial of extension of a retiree still rests with the employer, UST.