Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 317 views

    SLU vs. Cobarrubias

    Uploaded by

    Theodore0176
    1) Cobarrubias, an associate professor, was placed on forced leave by SLU for failing her evaluation three times in a five-year period per their CBA. 2) Cobarrubias challenged the forced leave through grievance procedures and voluntary arbitration, arguing a prior CA case prohibited forced leave beyond the duration of the CBA. 3) Cobarrubias filed a petition for review of the arbitration dismissal with the CA but failed to pay filing fees within the required 15 days. The CA initially dismissed but reinstated upon payment in a motion for reconsideration over 72 days later.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    SLU vs. Cobarrubias

    Uploaded by

    Theodore0176
    317 views2 pages
    1) Cobarrubias, an associate professor, was placed on forced leave by SLU for failing her evaluation three times in a five-year period per their CBA. 2) Cobarrubias challenged the forced leave through grievance procedures and voluntary arbitration, arguing a prior CA case prohibited forced leave beyond the duration of the CBA. 3) Cobarrubias filed a petition for review of the arbitration dismissal with the CA but failed to pay filing fees within the required 15 days. The CA initially dismissed but reinstated upon payment in a motion for reconsideration over 72 days later.

    Original Description:

    SLU vs. Cobarrubias

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Cobarrubias, an associate professor, was placed on forced leave by SLU for failing her evaluation three times in a five-year period per their CBA. 2) Cobarrubias challenged the forced leave through grievance procedures and voluntary arbitration, arguing a prior CA case prohibited forced leave beyond the duration of the CBA. 3) Cobarrubias filed a petition for review of the arbitration dismissal with the CA but failed to pay filing fees within the required 15 days. The CA initially dismissed but reinstated upon payment in a motion for reconsideration over 72 days later.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    317 views2 pages

    SLU vs. Cobarrubias

    Uploaded by

    Theodore0176
    1) Cobarrubias, an associate professor, was placed on forced leave by SLU for failing her evaluation three times in a five-year period per their CBA. 2) Cobarrubias challenged the forced leave through grievance procedures and voluntary arbitration, arguing a prior CA case prohibited forced leave beyond the duration of the CBA. 3) Cobarrubias filed a petition for review of the arbitration dismissal with the CA but failed to pay filing fees within the required 15 days. The CA initially dismissed but reinstated upon payment in a motion for reconsideration over 72 days later.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    REMEDIAL LAW 1 > Civil Procedure > Rule 1-5

    Saint Louis University, Inc., Petitioner vs. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias,


    Respondent
    G.R. No. 187104; August 3, 2010
    J. Brion (Third Division)

    FACTS:
    Cobarrubias is an associate professor of SLU and an active member of the Union
    of Faculty and Employees (UFESLU). In a CBA between SLU and UFESLU a provision
    for forced leave for one regular semester shall be applied for teaching employees
    who will fail 3 times within a 5-year period in the yearly evaluation. SLU placed
    Cobarrubias on forced leave for the first semester of S.Y. 2007-2008 when she failed
    the evaluation for 3 times.
    Cobarrubias sought recourse from the CBAs grievance machinery, but to no
    avail. Thus, Cobarrubias filed a case for illegal forced leave or illegal suspension
    with the NCMB of the DOLE and when circulation and mediation again failed, the
    parties submitted the issues between them for voluntary arbitration (VA).
    Cobarrubias argued that the CA already resolved the forced leave issue in a prior
    case between the parties ruling that the forced leave for teachers who fail their
    evaluation for 3 times within a five-year period should be coterminous with the CBA
    in force during the same five-year period. SLU, for its part, countered that the CAs
    decision is not yet final. The VA dismissed the case. Cobarrubias filed with the CA a
    petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, but failed to pay the required
    filing fees and to attach to the petition copies of the material portions of the record.
    Thus, the CA dismissed the petition outright for Cobarrubias procedural lapses.
    Upon MR, procedural lapses were complied with thus the CA reinstated the petition.
    ISSUE: WON the CA erred in reinstating Cobarrubias petition despite her failure to
    pay the appeal fee within the reglementary period
    HELD: YES.
    Appeal is not a natural right but a mere statutory privilege, thus, appeal must be
    made strictly in accordance with the provision set by law. Rule 43 of the Rules of
    Court provides that appeals from the judgment of the VA shall be taken to the CA,
    by filing a petition for review within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of
    the notice of judgment. Furthermore, upon the filing of the petition, the
    petitioner shall pay to the CA clerk of court the docketing and other lawful
    fees; non-compliance with the procedural requirements shall be a
    sufficient ground for the petitions dismissal. Thus, payment in full of docket
    fees within the prescribed period is not only mandatory, but also jurisdictional. It is
    an essential requirement, without which, the decision appealed from would become
    final and executory as if no appeal has been filed.

    In the present case, Cobarrubias paid her docket fees in full only after seventytwo (72) days when she filed her motion for reconsideration and attached the postal
    money orders. Undeniably, the docket fees were paid late, and without payment of
    the full docket fees, Cobarrubias appeal was not perfected within the reglementary
    period.
    While procedural rules are liberally construed, the provisions on reglementary
    periods are strictly applied, indispensable as they are to the prevention of needless
    delays, and are necessary to the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business.
    Viewed in this light, procedural rules are not to be belittled or dismissed simply
    because their non-observance may have prejudiced a party's substantive rights; like
    all rules, they are required to be followed. However, there are recognized exceptions
    to their strict observance, such as:
    (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons;
    (2) to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate with his failure to
    comply with the prescribed procedure;
    (3) good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying within a reasonable
    time from the time of the default;
    (4) the existence of special or compelling circumstances;
    (5) the merits of the case;
    (6) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party
    favored by the suspension of the rules;
    (7) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory;
    (8) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby;
    (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without the appellant's
    fault;
    (10) peculiar, legal and equitable circumstances attendant to each case;
    (11) in the name of substantial justice and fair play;
    (12) importance of the issues involved; and
    (13) exercise of sound discretion by the judge, guided by all the attendant
    circumstances. Thus, there should be an effort, on the part of the party invoking
    liberality, to advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for his/her failure
    to comply with the rules.
    In Cobarrubias' case, no such explanation has been advanced. Other than
    insisting that the ends of justice and fair play are better served if the case is
    decided on its merits, Cobarrubias offered no excuse for her failure to pay the
    docket fees in full when she filed her petition for review.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy