3&epuhlic of Tbe Jlbilippines: Upreme Ourt
3&epuhlic of Tbe Jlbilippines: Upreme Ourt
3&epuhlic of Tbe Jlbilippines: Upreme Ourt
~upreme ~ourt
;fffilanila
FIRST DIVISION
Promulgated:
ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE,
SERENO, CJ:
1
Both the Decision dated 27 February 2009 and the Resolution dated 22 July 2009 in CA-G.R. SP. No.
101382 were penned by CA Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang. Associate Justices Teresita Dy-
Liacco Flores and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurred in the Decision, while Associate Justices Remedios
Salazar-Fernando and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. concurred in the Resolution. See: rollo, pp. 35-57.
2
The Resolution dated 27 July 2007 was penned by NLRC Commissioner Gregorio 0. Bilog, Ill and
concurred in by Commissioner Tito F. Genito. Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier took no part in
the proceedings. See: rollo, pp. 58-67.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 188914
THE FACTS
3
CA rollo, p. 38.
4
Id. at 39.
5
Id. at 40-43.
6
Id. at 47.
7
Id. at 48.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 188914
It is with your best interest in mind and deep regret on our part that
we have to let you go. A new environment may be able to provide you
more avenues and opportunities where you can utilize your graduate
studies in Creative Writing to the fullest.
8
Id. at 38.
9
The Decision dated 16 July 2004 was penned by labor arbiter Ramon Valentin C. Reyes. See: rollo, pp.
69-78.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 188914
With respect to the first reason, the labor arbiter reiterated that the
alleged handwritten notation on Manaois’s employment application showing
that the approval thereof was premised on her completion of a master’s
degree had not been disclosed or made known to her at the start of her
engagement. In fact, she was not given a copy of the approval until it was
attached to the position paper of SSC. The labor arbiter agreed with
Manaois that the only credible evidence that a precondition had been set for
the acceptance of her employment application was SSC’s letter expressly
stating that she must (a) maintain a good performance and (b) submit the
necessary papers pertaining to her master’s degree. Regarding these
preconditions, the labor arbiter noted that the allegation concerning the mere
average performance rating of Manaois given by the students was neither
made known to her nor duly substantiated with documentary proof. Even so,
the labor arbiter articulated that at the very least, the performance of
Manaois during her three-year probationary employment was satisfactory, as
admitted by SSC itself, thereby satisfying the first condition mentioned in
the letter. The labor arbiter then considered the Certification issued by UP as
sufficient evidence of Manaois’s compliance with the second condition set
by SSC.
Next, the labor arbiter noted that under the SSC Faculty Manual, the
minimum requirements for the rank of instructor, for which petitioner had
been hired under the employment contract, was a bachelor’s degree with at
least 25% units of master’s studies completed. He then found that the
requirement for a master’s degree actually pertained to the rank of assistant
professor, a position that had not been applied for by Manaois. Thus, he
ruled that failure to finish a master’s degree could not be used either as a
ground for dismissing petitioner or as basis for refusing to extend to her a
permanent teaching status.
THE CA RULING
The CA then juxtaposed her letter with the reply of SSC’s Dean of
Arts and Sciences, who said that petitioner must submit the necessary papers
pertaining to the latter’s master’s degree, as represented in her application
letter. It treated this reply as indubitable proof of SSC’s appraisal of the
requirement to obtain a master’s degree. Consequently, the appellate court
reasoned that the disclosure of the notation on petitioner’s application latter
was already inconsequential, since one of the topics of the exchange of
10
Rollo, pp. 59-67.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 188914
THE ISSUE
OUR RULING
11
Colegio del Santisimo Rosario v. Rojo, G.R. No. 170388, 4 September 2013; Mercado v. AMA Computer
College-Parañaque City, Inc., G.R. No. 183572, 13 April 2010, 618 SCRA 218; Magis Young Achievers’
Learning Center v. Manalo, G.R. No. 178835, 13 February 2009, 579 SCRA 421; International Catholic
Migration Commission v. National Labor Relations Commission, 251 Phil. 560 (1989).
Decision 7 G.R. No. 188914
proper and efficient employees. 12 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. 13
Article 281 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides as follows:
I. EMPLOYMENT
A. xxxx
xxxx
IV. EFFECTIVITY
The SSC Faculty Manual in turn provides for the following conditions
in order for a faculty member to acquire permanent employment status: 15
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
CA rollo, pp. 40-42.
15
Id. at 43.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 188914
B. PERMANENCY
xxxx
We also agree with the CA that the labor arbiter and the NLRC
gravely misinterpreted the section in the SSC Faculty Manual, which
purportedly provided for a lower academic requirement for full-time faculty
members with the rank of instructor, regardless of whether they have
attained permanency or are still on probation. The labor arbiter refers to the
following section in the SSC Manual: 16
16
Id. at 124.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 188914
B. ACCORDING TO RANK
1. INSTRUCTOR
19
See: Colegio del Santisimo Rosario v. Rojo, supra note 11; Mercado v. AMA Computer College-
Parañaque City, Inc., supra note 11; Magis Young Achievers’ Learning Center v. Manalo, supra note 11;
Lacuesta v. Ateneo de Manila University, supra note 17; Cagayan Cagayan Capitol College v. National
Labor Relations Commission, supra; University of Santo Tomas v. National Labor Relations Commission,
supra note 17.
20
The Commission on Higher Education has issued the 2008 Manual of Regulations for Private Higher
Education (CHED Memorandum Order No. 40, Series of 2008) during the pendency of this case.
21
Department of Education, Culture and Sports Order No. 92, S. 1992 (10 August 1992).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 188914
probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more than three
(3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in the elementary
and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of
satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9)
consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level
where collegiate courses are offered on the trimester basis.
xxxx
c. Tertiary
xxxx
Any academic teaching personnel who does not fall under any of
the classes or ranks indicated in the preceding paragraph shall be classified
preferably as professorial lecturer, guest lecturer, or any other similar
academic designation on the basis of his qualifications. (Emphases
supplied)
22
Lacuesta v. Ateneo de Manila University, supra note 17; Cagayan Capitol College v. National Labor
Relations Commission, supra note 18; University of Santo Tomas v. National Labor Relations Commission,
supra note 17.
23
Supra note 17, at 336-337.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 188914
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
~~£utuM
TERESITA}. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION