Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

Update on case against AIM management for illegal suspension of AFA officers

In his supposed update, Vice President Victor Tan did not provide the AIM community all the essential and relevant case facts, potentially leading the readers to a seriously flawed analysis and conclusion.


Two weeks before this decision was issued, on September 12, AFA lawyers have withdrawn this petition and instead filed acomplaint of illegal suspension against AIM management, naming President Francis Estrada and Vice President Victor Tan as respondents.


Here are some of the points overlooked by VP Tan:

  • On July 20, the Commission directed AIM to file a comment/response to the petition for injunction within unextendible period of 5 days;

  • On August 23, AFA lawyers filed a manifestation (with motion to resolve) citing the failure of AIM to file comment/answer within the prescribed period;

  • On September 12, days after the MDM classes started, AFA lawyers filed a motion to withdraw petition citing no other notice, resolution and/or order by the Commission.

  • Also on the same date on September 12, AFA lawyers filed a complaint against AIM for illegal suspension, naming Francis Estrada and Victor Tan for respondentAIM.

In his update, VP Tan failed to cite that the decision essentially pointed out that “the ordinary and proper recourse of an illegally dismissed or suspended employee is to file a complaint for illegal dismissal or illegal suspension before the Labor Arbiter.”

VP Tan also failed to share the NLRC position that while the law recognizes the right of management to “discipline and/or dismiss erring employees” such management prerogative is not absolute and must be exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor.”

The decision finally stated that “Whether or not management has fairly exercised its prerogative to suspend petitioners herein is not for the Commission to determine however. The same lies with Labor Arbiter before whom a complaint should be filed.” (Note: bold letters supplied by author for emphasis).




On 10/18/07, felix@… wrote:would the two of you like me to post anything on this matter? That weareappealing this to Sec Brion, CA or SC?—– Forwarded by Felixberto U. Bustos Jr/Faculty/AIM on 10/18/200702:32PM


—–Victor TanTo: Faculty, Staff 10/18/2007 01:54 cc:PM

Subject: Update

This is to update everyone on the recent development on the following case involving AIM:Petition for Injunction-

1. Background- on July 17, 2007, professors Leyco and Limlingan filed apetition for “Injunction with an Application for a Temporary Restraining Order” against AIM in relation to the one-year suspension imposed on them starting July 9, 2007. This petition was filed with the third division of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

2. Decision- last September 28, 2007, the NLRC’s third division,through Presiding Commissioner, Ms. Lourdes Javier, and with the concurrence of Commissioners Tito Genilo and Gregorio Bilog III, denied said petition.— End forwarded message —

Estrada’s list of suspended faculty grows, AFA protests latest management assault against tenure and academic freedom

November 6, 2007

Mr. Francis Estrada
Asian Institute of Management

Dear Mr. Estrada,

On October 31, 2007, you sent a letter to Prof. Felix Bustos informing him of your decision to suspend him “without pay for a period of one (1) year beginning 5 November 2007 until 4 November 2008”. You likewise suspended the privileges and benefits due him as an AIM professor for the duration of the same period.


Once again, the members of AFA are disturbed by your inconsiderate action regarding a well-respected, tenured member of the faculty with the rank of full professor. Once again, we are conveying to you our concern over your total disregard for the proper procedure that the Institute has always followed regarding faculty behavior in alleged “conflict of interest” cases. At the risk of sounding repetitious, we would like to refer you to the following provision in the AIM Policy Manual:

“In cases of evidence of dysfunctional behavior by tenured faculty, the Dean of the Institute shall formally request the Permanent Rank and Tenure Committee to convene a review. Due process shall be accorded the tenured faculty member. A simple majority vote of the Committee shall determine the sanction to be levied on the faculty member.

“A tenured faculty member may appeal the outcome of the case and the decision of the Permanent Rank and Tenure Committee before the tenure-track faculty en banc. The Tenure Track Faculty may overturn the Permanent Rank and Tenure Committee decision by a two-thirds vote.

We are saddened by your refusal to heed AFA members’ request to follow the rules and guidelines for alleged faculty dysfunctional behavior. If you recall, in a letter dated August 16, 2007, we reminded you of the time-honored procedure for such behaviors.





We are not asking for special treatment for the faculty; we merely want to remind you that we have always abided by what we as a faculty have collectively agreed to follow. And you, as the leader of this Institute, are the person we look up to for procedural compliance.



AIM Faculty Association


Gloria S. Chan, Ph. D.


Cc: Board of Trustees
C/o Mr. Washington Sycip, Chair