TOPIC TITLE FACTS
Petitioners Son and Anitola were Was the failure to When CHED Memorandum Order No.
Raymond Son hired in June 2005, while Pollarco was
employed earlier or in June 2004. These
Non- vs. petitioners were faculty members with
possession of probationary status until all the
a Master’s University of requirements provided under UST rules
Degree Santo Tomas including the possession of a graduate
degree before the expiration of the
probationary period which is within 5
semesters from the date of hiring.
GR No.
211273 The requirement of having a
18 April 2018 graduate degree for an undergraduate
teaching load has been imposed upon
faculty members since 1992 in the
manual for private schools under DECS
(Department of Education, Culture and
Sports), and CHED’s 2008
Memorandum Order 04-08.
The petitioners were hired by UST
without the said requirement in the
condition that they will finish their
master’s degree, but petitioners failed so.
Yet, they continued to teach beyond
their probationary period.
In 2010, CHED released a
memorandum addressing the minimum
requirement of a graduate degree for
faculty members and the same was sent
as a memorandum by UST to its faculty
members ceasing to re-appoint those
who have not met such requirement but
if they are already due for their thesis or
defense may write an appeal for
consideration. On June 11, 2010, they
received a thank you and termination
letter signed by the dean of their college
for the reason that they have not
finished their graduate degree. Hence
this petition.
ISSUE RULING DOCTRINE
As early as in 1992,
complete the required 40-08 came out, it merely carried over the the requirement of a
master’s degree a valid requirement of a masteral degree for faculty Master's degree in the
ground for their members of undergraduate programs undergraduate program
dismissal? contained in the 1992 Revised Manual of professor's field of
Regulations for Private Schools. It cannot instruction has been in
therefore be said that the requirement of a place, through DECS
master's degree was retroactively applied in Order 92 (series of
petitioners' case, because it was already the 1992, August 10, 1992)
prevailing rule with the issuance of the 1992 or the Revised Manual
Revised Manual of Regulations for Private of Regulations for
Schools. Private Schools.
The requirement of
Thus, going by the requirements of a masteral degree for
law, it is plain to see that petitioners are not tertiary education
qualified to teach in the undergraduate teachers was held to be
programs of UST. And while they were not unreasonable but
given ample time and opportunity to satisfy rather in accord with
the requirements by obtaining their the public interest.
respective master's degrees, they failed in
the endeavor. Petitioners knew this - that
they cannot continue to teach for failure to
secure their master's degrees - and needed
no reminding of this fact; "those who are
seeking to be educators are presumed to
know these mandated qualifications.”
From a strict legal viewpoint, the
parties are both in violation of the law:
respondents, for maintaining professors
without the mandated masteral degrees,
and for petitioners, agreeing to be employed
despite knowledge of their lack of the
necessary qualifications. Petitioners cannot
therefore insist to be employed by UST
since they still do not possess the required
master's degrees; the fact that UST
continues to hire and maintain professors
without the necessary master's degrees is
not a ground for claiming illegal dismissal,
or even reinstatement. As far as the law is
concerned, respondents are in violation of
the CHED regulations for continuing the
practice of hiring unqualified teaching
personnel; but the law cannot come to the
 aid of petitioners on this sole ground. As
between the parties herein, they are in pari
delicto.
Tolentino was hired by respondent Were the petitioners It has already been settled that those An employee who
Armando Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) as a flight deemed to have lost their who participated in the 5 June 1998 strike knowingly defies a
Tolentino engineer on 22 October 1971. As a pilot, employment status of ALPAP are deemed to have lost their return-to-work order
Tolentino was a member of the Airline through their employment status with PAL. issued by the Secretary
Participation vs. Pilots Association of the Philippines participation in an illegal Thus, Tolentino, who did not deny his of Labor is deemed to
in an illegal (ALPAP), which had a collective strike, thus, non- participation in the strike and his failure to have committed an
strike Philippine Air bargaining agreement (CBA) with PAL. entitlement to retirement promptly comply with the return-to-work illegal act which is a just
Lines On 5 June 1998, ALPAP members benefits? order of the Secretary of Labor, could not cause to dismiss the
went on strike. On 7 June 1998, the claim any retirement benefits because he employee under Article
Secretary of Labor issued an Order did not retire – he simply lost his 282 of the Labor Code.
GR NO. requiring all striking officers and employment status. A strike that is
218984 members of ALPAP to return to work undertaken despite the
24 January within 24 hours from receipt of the issuance by the
2018 Order and requiring PAL management Secretary of Labor of an
to accept them under the same terms assumption and/or
and conditions of employment prior to certification is a
the strike. On 8 June 1998, the Secretary prohibited activity and
of Labor served the Order on the officers thus illegal. The union
of ALPAP. While the union officers and officers and members,
members had until 9 June 1998 to as a result, are deemed
comply with the directive of the to have lost their
Secretary of Labor, some pilots – employment status for
including Tolentino – continued to having knowingly
participate in the strike. participated in an illegal
On 26 June 1998, when Tolentino act. Stated differently,
and other striking pilots returned to from the moment a
work, PAL refused to readmit these worker defies a return-
returning pilots. Thus, they filed a to-work order, he is
complaint for illegal lockout against PAL. deemed to have
On 20 July 1998, Tolentino reapplied for abandoned his job. The
employment with PAL as a newly hired loss of employment
pilot, and thus voluntarily underwent status results from the
the six months probationary period. striking employees' own
After less than a year, Tolentino act — an act which is
tendered his resignation effective 16 July illegal, an act in
1999. violation of the law and
Meanwhile, on 1 June 1999, the in defiance of authority.
Secretary of Labor issued a Resolution
declaring the strike conducted by ALPAP
on 5 June 1998 illegal for being
procedurally infirm and in open defiance
of the return-to-work order of 7 June
1998. Members and officers of ALPAP
who participated in the strike in defiance
of the 7 June 1998 return-to-work order
were declared to have lost their
employment status. This resolution was
affirmed by this Court on 10 April 2002.
Tolentino worked for a foreign
airline, and thereafter returned to the
Philippines. Upon his return, he
informed PAL of his intention of
collecting his separation and/or
retirement benefits under the CBA. PAL
refused to pay Tolentino the separation
and/or retirement benefits as stated in
the CBA. Tolentino filed his complaint
against PAL for non-payment of holiday
pay, rest day pay, separation pay, and
retirement benefits with prayer for the
payment of damages and attorney's fees.