SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 9 2002.

G.R. No. 128845 (International School Alliance of Educators [ISAE] vs. Hon. Leonardo A. Quisumbing in his capacity as the Secretary of Labor & Employment, et al., and International School, Inc.)

The International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE), petitioner in G.R. No. 128845, filed on May 3, 2002 a “Manifestation cum Motion to Lift TRO issued by the Court of Appeals and other reliefs.” The manifestation stems from a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the Court of Appeals enjoining the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Secretary Patricia Sto. Tomas from enforcing its Orders dated February 19, 2002 and March 21, 2002.

To recall, ISAE and International School, Inc. were involved in a dispute over their 1995-1998 Collective Bargaining Agreement involving, among others, the parity of salaries between the foreign-hired and the local-hired faculty.

Having assumed jurisdiction over the dispute, then DOLE Acting Secretary Cresenciano Trajano issued an Order dated June 10, 1996 in effect affirming the practice of the School according foreign-hires higher salaries than their local counterparts. The dispositive portion of said Order reads:

WHEREFORE, ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the International School-Manila and the International School Alliance of Educators are hereby directed to execute their Collective Bargaining Agreement, the economic provisions of which shall retroact to 1 July 1995 until 30 June 1998 while the representation aspect shall take effect for five years starting from 1 July 1995. The parties are further directed to incorporate in the CBA the items herein awarded as well as all other earlier agreements, if any.

xxx.[1]

Then DOLE Secretary Leonardo Quisumbing denied the union’s motion for reconsideration in its Order dated March 19, 1997.

Upon petition by ISAE, this Court, in a decision promulgated on June 1, 2000, struck down the School’s discriminatory practice in its Decision in G.R. No. 128845, thus:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The Orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment dated June 10, 1996 and March 19, 1997, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as they uphold the practice of respondent School of according foreign-hires higher salaries than local-hires.

SO ORDERED.[2]

On July 4, 2000, the School filed a Partial Motion for Reconsideration which was denied with finality in a resolution of this Court dated August 30, 2000.

In a motion dated October 24, 2000, ISAE sought to declare private respondents in contempt of court for non-compliance with the decision of this Court and to direct the Secretary of Labor to execute said decision.

The Court denied the motion to cite private respondents in contempt on February 12, 2001 for lack of showing that a writ of execution had been issued by DOLE and thus the contempt charge was premature.

On August 20, 2001, ISAE filed a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution before DOLE Secretary Sto. Tomas. In an Order dated February 19, 2002, Secretary Sto. Tomas resolved the motion as follows:

WHEREFORE, pursuant to the terms of the Orders of this Office of June 10, 1996 and March 19, 1997 and the Decision of the Supreme Court dated June 1, 2000, the parties - ISM and ISAE - are hereby ordered to execute within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Order a Collective Bargaining Agreement Incorporating the following terms:

a. a provision or provisions adjusting, effective July 1, 1995, the salary levels of members of the bargaining unit (local hires) to salary levels equivalent to those of foreign hires;

b. a provision on the scope of the bargaining unit, with membership in the bargaining unit confined to local hires;

c. provisions on retirement pay, sick leave, life insurance benefits and medical benefits as stated in the body of this Order;

d. a provision stating that the CBA shall be effective with respect to the economic provisions from July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1998, and for a term of five (5) years starting from July 1, 1995 with respect to representation;

e. “other earlier agreements, if any,” between the parties.

The parties shall submit to this Office a copy of the CBA within ten (10) days from its execution.

The parties are hereby ordered to submit to this Office, likewise within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Order, their respective computations of the backwages and incremental benefits due the members of the ISAE arising from salary parity and other terms of their 1995-2000 CBA, computed from July 1, 1995 up to the end of school year 1999-2000. They shall submit as well photocopies of the documents supporting their computations, to the Bureau of Working Conditions, through this Office.

The parties are also ordered to submit to this Office, within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Order, their individual report (with copies of the appropriate supporting documents) on whether ISM has complied with our order to pay Mr. Bruce Belkin the financial benefits previously offered to him.

SO ORDERED.[3]

Secretary Sto. Tomas denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the School in an Order dated March 21, 2002.

Subsequently, the School filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition (CA-GR SP No. 70139) before the Court of Appeals praying that the Court set aside the Orders of the DOLE dated February 19, 2002 and March 21, 2002. It also asked the Court of Appeals to direct “the parties to comply with the directives and arbitral awards embodied in the Orders dated 10 June 1996 and 19 March 1997” issued by Acting Secretary Trajano and Secretary Quisumbing, respectively.

The School alleged that the Secretary Sto. Tomas’ orders were void since the dispositive portion of this Court’s decision did not direct the inclusion in the 1995-1998 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) of a provision adjusting the salary levels of petitioner’s local-hires. The School also argued that our decision should not apply to the 1995-1998 CBA because the ruling therein that removed salary discrimination between the foreign-hires and local-hires has no retroactive effect.

In a Resolution dated April 23, 2002, the Court of Appeals issued a TRO enjoining Secretary Sto. Tomas from enforcing the Orders dated February 19, 2002 and March 21, 2002.

In the present Manifestation cum Motion, ISAE asks that the Court dissolve the TRO, direct the Court of Appeals to desist from resolving CA-GR SP No. 70139, affirm the Orders of the DOLE and direct the execution of the this Court’s judgment without further delay. ISAE also prays that the Court initiate “proceedings for indirect contempt by serving a show cause order on the International School Manila, its Board of Trustees led by its President Aernout Van Gaag, its Superintendent David Toze, and Attys. Jose. Anselmo Castro, Priscilla N. Fernando, and Randall C. Tabayoyong of the Castro Cadiz & Carag Law Offices, the Counsel of Record of ISM in the Court of Appeals, for contumacious behavior, improper conduct, and disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ and judgment of the Court."

ISAE accuses the School of “attempting to vary the judgment through. . .unlawful maneuvers,” “of conjuring mental constructs to rationalize its position.” Moreover, by filing the petition before the Court of Appeals, the School allegedly intends “to cause confusion and hopefully delay” execution. It is argued that the “petition before the Court of Appeals is purely dilatory and patently malicious.” According to ISAE, this is made more evident in an e-mail dated March 6, 2002 sent by School Superintendent David Toze to the students’ parents, stating:

In the event that our Motion for Reconsideration (referring to the Writ of Execution issued by the Secretary of Labor) is denied, we would, as a matter of course, refer the issue first to the Court of Appeals and thence to the Supreme Court for final judgment some years down the road.[4] (Italics and emphasis by ISAE.)

ISAE also points out that the School’s petition seeks the reinstatement of the arbitral awards contained in the Orders dated June 10, 1996 and March 19, 1997. These were the exact orders that the Court reversed and set aside in part in its Decision in G.R. No. 128845. Therefore, in filing the petition before the Court of Appeals, the School, according to ISAE, is attempting a re-litigation of issues already passed upon, and the reversal of a final and executory decision rendered, by this Court.

It appears plain to the Court that there should be no dispute regarding the application of the Decision in G.R. No. 128845 to the 1995-1998 Collective Bargaining Agreement. The dispositive portion thereof seems quite plain when it states, “The petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The Orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment dated June 10, 1996 and March 19, 1997, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as they uphold the practice of respondent School of according foreign-hires higher salaries than local-hires.” Since it did not touch upon the other aspects of the assailed orders, such portions are presumed to have been sustained by this Court, including that portion of the Trajano Order dated June 10, 1996 directing the parties “to execute their Collective Bargaining Agreement, the economic provisions of which shall retroact to 1 July 1995 until 30 June 1998.”

In fine, the School’s actuations are tantamount to, among other things, disobedience or resistance to the final judgment of this Court by resorting to dilatory tactics such as filing of another case in the Court of Appeals involving the same subject matter and issues that have already been resolved with finality by this Court, which also constitutes forum-shopping.

CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to require the International School Manila, its Board of Trustees led by its President Aernout Van Gaag, its Superintendent David Toze, and Attys. J. Conrado P. Castro, Priscilla N. Fernando, and Randall C. Tabayoyong of the Castro Cadiz & Carag Law Offices, to SHOW CAUSE, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice hereof, why they should not be held in indirect contempt for disobedience of or resistance to a lawful judgment of this Court; improper conduct tending to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice; and engaging in forum-shopping by filing with the Court of Appeals a petition for prohibition and certiorari to enjoin the orders of the Secretary of Labor and Employment implementing the decision of this Court which has become final and executory.

The Court further Resolves to:

(a) GRANT the motion of private respondent International School Manila, Inc. for leave and for an extension of thirty (30) days or until June 3, 2002 within which to file a comment/opposition to the petitioner’s manifestation cum motion to lift the temporary restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals and other reliefs dated May 2, 2002;

(b) NOTE and GRANT the manifestation and motion of said private respondent for a second extension of fifteen (15) days from June 1. 2002 within which to file the same; and .

(c) NOTE: (1) the entry of appearance of Attys. Priscilla N. Fernando and Randall C. Tabayoyong of Castro Cadiz and Carag, Suite 2602, 26th Floor, Atlanta Centre, No. 31 Annapolis St., Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila, as counsel for private respondent; and (2) the said opposition with motion of private respondent to set petitioner’s manifestation cum motion for oral arguments.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court