CASE: Cebu Institute of Medicine (CIM) and Dr. Josefina L. Poblete, petitioners, v.

CIM
Employees Union-National Federation of Labor
DATE: July 5, 2001
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
SUMMARY: The issue is whether or not the mandatory share of an educational
institution in SSS, Medicare, and PAG-IBIG premiums can be charged against the
incremental tutition fee increase provided by law (Sec. 5, RA 6728). The answer lies in
the statutory construction of the term other benefits and whether SSS, Medicare, and
PAG-IBIG premiums fall under this. Applying the doctrine, the Court ruled in
affirmative, therefore CIMs practice of charging its share in the premiums against the
tuition fee increase is not prohibited.
DOCTRINE:
Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos: Where the law does not distinguish,
the courts shouldnt distinguish.
Sec. 19, RA 1161 (Social Security Law)
Sec. 5, RA 6728 (Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education
Act)
(2) Assistance under paragraph (1), subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall be granted and
tuition fees under subparagraph (c) may be increased, on the condition that seventy
percent (70%) of the amount subsidized allotted for tuition fee or of the tuition fee
increases shall go to the payment of salaries, wages, allowances and other benefits of
teaching and non-teaching personnel except administrators who are principal
stockholders of the school, and may be used to cover increases as provided for in the
collective bargaining agreements existing or in force at the time when this Act is
approved and made effective:
(3) Provided, That government subsidies are not used directly for salaries of teachers of
non-secular subjects. At least twenty percent (20%) shall go to the improvement or
modernization of buildings, equipment, libraries, laboratories, gymnasia and similar
facilities and to the payment of other costs of operation
FACTS:
CIM was a non-stock, non-profit educational institution, while the respondents were
the certified bargaining representative of the employees. The respondents complained to
the Labor Arbiter of CIMs practice of charging its share as an employer in the SSS,
Medicare, and PAG-IBIG premiums against the 70 % incremental tuition fee increase.
The Labor Arbiter, Julius Neri, ruled in their favor and invoked Sec. 19, RA 1161,
which states that the employeer...shall pay, with respect to such covered employee, the
employers contribution. He ordered CIM to refund the union of its share in the SSS and
PAG-IBIG premiums. CIMs motion for reconsideration was denied.
The Court of Appeals likewise ruled in favor of the respondents, saying that if CIM
paid the employers share out of the funds allocated for the employees, it was as if the

employees were paying for the premiums and this reduced the portion of tuition fee
increase for their benefit.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the mandatory share of an educational institution in SSS, Medicare, and
PAG-IBIG premiums can be charged against the 70% incremental tuition fee increase
COURT: NO a) Other benefits may refer to SSS, Medicare, Pagibig and may be taken
from the 70% tuition increase since the law only says that money from this may be given
to employees in the form of salaries and other benefits. Applying the doctrine, since the
law did not distinguish between other benefits and SSS, etc, these may be deducted
from the 70% increase in tuition charged by the school.
b) The share of employer already integrated in the money allocated for the premiums
from the tuition fee increase. The 70 % increase in the tuition fee is packaged in the form
of salaries, wages, allowances, and other benefits to be given to the employees.
c) Absurd to deduct employers share from the 30 % or elsewhere. The said portion
intended for the improvement or modernization of buildings, equipment, libraries,
laboratories, gymnasia.
d) Comparable to PD 451 and BP Blg. 232. However, the former limited the allotment of
tuition fee increase to salaries and wages. The latter granted schools the authority to
determine the tuition fee increase, subject to the rules of the Ministry of Education,
Culture, and Sports.
VERDICT: Petition granted allow CIM to charge its share against the 70 % tuition fee
increase; CA decision reversed and set aside