INSTITUTION

LABOR STANDARDS |EMPLOYMENT OF ACADEMIC/NONACADEMIC PERSONNEL IN PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL

109. University of the east et al., vs.

Pepanio, G.r. No. 193897, Jan. 23,
2013
FACTS: In 1992, the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports (DECS)
issued the Revised Manual of Regulations
for Private Schools, Article IX, Section 44,
paragraph 1 (a), of which requires college
faculty members to have a master's
degree as a minimum educational
qualification for acquiring regular status.
In 1994 petitioner University of the East
(UE) and the UE Faculty Association
executed a five-year Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) with effect up to 1999
which provided, among others, that UE
shall extend only semester-to-semester
appointments to college faculty staffs who
did
not
possess
the
minimum
qualifications.
Those
with
such
qualifications shall be given probationary
appointments and their performance on a
full-time or full-load basis shall be
reviewed for four semesters.
Meantime, on February 7, 1996 several
concerned government agencies issued
DECS-CHED-TESDA-DOLE Joint Order 1
which reiterated the policy embodied in
the Manual of Regulations that "teaching
or academic personnel who do not meet
the minimum academic qualifications shall
not acquire tenure or regular status." In
consonance with this, the UE President
issued a University Policy stating that,
beginning the School Year 1996-1997, it
would
hire
those
who
have
no
postgraduate units or masters degree for
its college teaching staffs, in the absence
of qualified applicants, only on a semesterto-semester basis.
UE hired respondent Mariti D. Bueno in
1997 and respondent Analiza F. Pepanio in
2000, both on a semester-to-semester
basis to teach in its college. They could
not qualify for probationary or regular
status because they lacked postgraduate
degrees.
Bueno
enrolled
in
six
postgraduate subjects at the Philippine
Normal Universitys graduate school but
there is no evidence that she finished her
course. Pepanio earned 27 units in her

graduate studies at the Gregorio Araneta

University Foundation but these could no
longer be credited to her because she
failed to continue with her studies within
five years.
Pursuant to the new CBA, UE extended
probationary appointments to respondents
Bueno and Pepanio. Two years later in
October 2003, the Dean of the UE College
of Arts and Sciences, petitioner Eleanor
Javier, sent notices9 to probationary
faculty members, reminding them of the
expiration of the probationary status of
those lacking in postgraduate qualification
by the end of the first semester of the
School Year 2003-2004. Pepanio replied
that she was enrolled at the Polytechnic
University of the Philippines Graduate
School. Bueno, on the other hand, replied
that she was not interested in acquiring
tenure as she was returning to her
province.
In any event, Dean Javier subsequently
issued a memorandum, stating that she
would recommend the extension of the
probationary appointees for two more
semesters for those who want it based on
the wishes of the University President.
Respondent Pepanio requested a threesemester extension but Dean Javier
denied this request and directed Pepanio
to ask for just a two-semester extension.
The records do not show if Bueno
submitted a request for extension. At any
rate,
the
school
eventually
wrote
respondents, extending their probationary
period but neither Pepanio nor Bueno
reported for work.
Bueno later wrote UE, demanding that it
consider her a regular employee based on
her six-and-a-half-year service on a fullload basis, given that UE hired her in 1997
when what was in force was still the 1994
CBA. Pepanio made the same demand,
citing her three-and-a-half years of service
on a full-load basis. When UE did not heed
their demands, respondents filed cases of
illegal dismissal against the school before
the Labor Arbiter s (LA) office.

INSTITUTION

LABOR STANDARDS |EMPLOYMENT OF ACADEMIC/NONACADEMIC PERSONNEL IN PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL

For its defense, UE countered that it never

regarded
respondents
as
regular
employees since they did not hold the
required masters degree that government
rules required as minimum educational
qualification for their kind of work.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not UE filed a timely appeal
to the NLRC from the Decision of the LA;
2. Whether or not UEs petition before this
Court can be given due course given its
failure to enclose a certification from the
UE Board of Trustees empowering
petitioner Dean Javier to execute the
verification and certification of non-forum
shopping; and
3. Whether or not UE illegally dismissed
Bueno and Pepanio.
HELD:
One. Respondents Bueno and Pepanio
contend that UE filed its appeal to the
NLRC beyond the required 10-day period.
They point out that the postmaster gave
notice to Atty. Mison on March 17, 2005 to
claim his mail that contained the LA
Decision. He was deemed in receipt of that
decision five days after the notice or on
March 22, 2005. UE had 10 days from the
latter date or until April 1, 2005 within
which to file its appeal from that decision.
UE contends, on the other hand, that the
period of appeal should be counted from
April 4, 2005, the date appearing on the
registry return receipt of the mail
addressed to its counsel.
Two. Respondents alleged that UE failed to
attach to its petition a Secretarys
Certificate evidencing the resolution from
its Board of Trustees, authorizing a
representative or agent to sign the
verification and certification of non-forum
shopping.
Three. Respondents argue that UE hired
them in 1997 and 2000, when what was in
force was the 1994 CBA between UE and
the faculty union. Since that CBA did not
yet require a masters degree for acquiring

a regular status and since respondents

had already complied with the three
requirements of the CBA, namely, (a) that
they served full-time; (b) that they
rendered three consecutive years of
service; and (c) that their services were
satisfactory, they should be regarded as
having attained permanent or regular
status.
110. Colegio Del Santisimo Rosario
et al., vs. Rojo, G.R. No. 170388,
Sept. 4, 2013 citing Mercado et al.,
vs. AMA Computer College-Paranaque
City, GR No. 183572, April 13, 2010
FACTS: Petitioner Colegio del Santisimo
Rosario (CSR) hired respondent as a high
school teacher on probationary basis for
the school years 1992-1993, 1993-19947
and 1994-1995.
On April 5, 1995, CSR, through petitioner
Sr. Zenaida S. Mofada, OP (Mofada),
decided not to renew respondents
services.
Thus, on July 13, 1995, respondent filed a
Complaint10 for illegal dismissal. He
alleged that since he had served three
consecutive school years which is the
maximum number of terms allowed for
probationary employment, he should be
extended permanent employment. Citing
paragraph 75 of the 1970 Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools (1970
Manual), respondent asserted that "fulltime teachers who have rendered three
(3) consecutive years of satisfactory
services shall be considered permanent."
On the other hand, petitioners argued that
respondent knew that his Teachers
Contract for school year 1994-1995 with
CSR would expire on March 31, 1995.
Accordingly,
respondent
was
not
dismissed but his probationary contract
merely expired and was not renewed.
Petitioners also claimed that the "three
years" mentioned in paragraph 75 of the
1970 Manual refer to "36 months," not
three
school
years.14
And
since
respondent served for only three school
years of 10 months each or 30 months,

INSTITUTION

LABOR STANDARDS |EMPLOYMENT OF ACADEMIC/NONACADEMIC PERSONNEL IN PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL

then he had not yet served the "three

years" or 36 months mentioned in
paragraph 75 of the 1970 Manual.
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
The LA ruled that "three school years"
means three years of 10 months, not 12
months. Considering that respondent had
already served for three consecutive
school years, then he has already attained
regular employment status. Thus, the nonrenewal of his contract for school year
1995-1996 constitutes illegal dismissal.
ISSUE: Whether Basic education teacher
hired for three consecutive school years as
a probationary employee automatically
becomes a permanent employee upon
completion of his third year of probation
HELD: If the termination is brought about
by the completion of a contract or phase
thereof, or by failure of an employee to
meet the standards of the employer in the
case of probationary employment, it shall
be sufficient that a written notice is served
the employee, within a reasonable time
from the effective date of termination.
As a matter of due process, teachers on
probationary employment, just like all
probationary employees, have the right to
know whether they have met the
standards against which their performance
was evaluated. Should they fail, they also
have the right to know the reasons
therefor.
It should be pointed out that absent any
showing of unsatisfactory performance on
the part of respondent, it can be
presumed that his performance was
satisfactory,
especially
taking
into
consideration the fact that even while he
was still more than a year into his
probationary employment, he was already
designated Prefect of Discipline. In such
capacity, he was able to uncover the
existence of a drug syndicate within the
school and lessen the incidence of drug
use therein. Yet despite respondents
substantial contribution to the school,
petitioners chose to disregard the same

and instead terminated his services; while

most of those who were involved in drug
activities within the school were punished
with a slap on the wrist as they were
merely made to write letters promising
that the incident will not happen again.
111. Herrera-Manaois
vs.
St.
Scholasticas College, GR No. 188914,
December 11, 2013
FACTS: SSC, situated in the City of Manila,
is a private educational institution offering
elementary, secondary, and tertiary
education. Manaois graduated from SSC in
October 1992 with a degree in Bachelor of
Arts in English. In 1994, she returned to
her alma mater as a part-time English
teacher. After taking a leave of absence
for one year, she was again rehired by SSC
for the same position. Four years into the
service, she was later on recommended by
her Department Chairperson to become a
full-time faculty member of the English
Department.
Manaois thus applied for a position as fulltime instructor for school year 2000-2001.
She mentioned in her application letter3
that she had been taking the course
Master of Arts in English Studies, Major in
Creative Writing, at the University of the
Philippines, Diliman (UP); that she was
completing her masters thesis; and that
her oral defense was scheduled for June
2000. In a reply letter dated 17 April 2000,
the Dean of Arts and Sciences informed
her of the SSC Administrative Councils
approval of her application. She was then
advised to maintain the good performance
that she had shown for the past years and
to submit the necessary papers pertaining
to her masters degree. Accordingly, SSC
hired her as a probationary fulltime faculty
member with the assigned rank of
instructor for the school year 2000-2001.5
Her probationary employment continued
for a total of three consecutive years.
Throughout her service as a probationary
full-time
faculty
member
with
no
derogatory record, she was given abovesatisfactory
ratings
by
both
the

INSTITUTION

LABOR STANDARDS |EMPLOYMENT OF ACADEMIC/NONACADEMIC PERSONNEL IN PRIVATE EDUCATIONAL

Department Chairperson and the Dean of

Arts and Sciences.
Because of the forthcoming completion of
her
third
year
of
probationary
employment, Manaois wrote the Dean of
Arts and Sciences requesting an extension
of her teaching load for the school year
2003-2004. She again mentioned in her
letter that she was a candidate for a
masters degree in English Studies; that
the schedule of her oral defense may
actually materialize anytime within the
first academic semester of 2003; and that
she intended to fully earn her degree that
year. She also furnished the school with a
Certification from UP, stating that she had
already finished her coursework in her
masters
studies.
Furthermore,
she
indicated that it was her long-term goal to
apply for a return to full-time faculty
status by then and for SSC to consider the
aforesaid matters.
ISSUE: Whether the completion of a
masters degree is required in order for a
tertiary level educator to earn the status
of permanency in a private educational
institution

HELD: Probationary employment refers to

the trial stage or period during which the
employer examines the competency and
qualifications of job applicants, and
determines whether they are qualified to
be extended permanent employment
status. Such an arrangement affords an
employer the opportunity before the full
force of the guarantee of security of
tenure comes into play to fully scrutinize
and observe the fitness and worth of
probationers while on the job and to
determine whether they would become
proper and efficient employees. It also
gives the probationers the chance to
prove to the employer that they possess
the necessary qualities and qualifications
to
meet
reasonable
standards
for
permanent employment.
For the foregoing reasons, we rule that
there is no legal obligation on the part of
SSC to reappoint Manaois after the lapse
of her temporary appointn:ient. We thus
affirm in toto the findings of fact of the CA
and rule that SSC is not guilty of illegal
dismissal.