|
SPOUSES ALWYN ONG LIM and EVELYN LUKANG LIM, Petitioners, - versus - Respondents. |
G.R. No. 172818
Present: Quisumbing, J., Chairperson, Carpio Morales, Tinga, VELASCO, JR., and PERALTA,* JJ. Promulgated: March 31, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This
instant petition for review assails the Decision[1] dated
The
antecedent facts are as follows:
Petitioner-spouses
Alwyn Ong Lim and Evelyn Lukang Lim were hired in June 1999. Alwyn was assigned to teach Mathematics,
Geometry, Algebra and Trigonometry subjects in the high school department of
On April 4, 2002, respondent Helen Sia, head
teacher of the school’s Chinese department, verbally informed petitioners that
their employment with the school were to be terminated, without giving the
reasons therefor.[5] Thus, petitioners filed their complaints for
illegal dismissal and monetary claims against the school and its officials on
Before the Labor Arbiter, respondents claimed
that petitioners were merely part-time teachers and thus they can be dismissed
even without waiting for the three-year probation period to lapse, as they
never acquired permanent status.[8]
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
petitioners. The dispositive portion of
the Consolidated Decision[9]
dated
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the complainants,
spouses ALWYN LIM and EVELYN LIM and LIGAYA DEBLOIS, and against the
respondents
1.
Reinstate
the three (3) complainants herein to their former position in the respondent
school without loss of seniority rights; and
2. Pay jointly and severally the complainants herein their back wages, 13th
month pay, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees as computed above.
SO ORDERED.[10]
Respondents
appealed the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. The NLRC found that petitioners were only
part-time teachers who did not acquire permanent status; hence, their dismissal
was legal. The dispositive portion of
its decision reads:
WHEREFORE,
all the above facts considered, the judgments in favor of Alwyn Ong Lim and
Evelyn Lukang Lim in the consolidated decision dated
SO ORDERED.[11]
Petitioners
filed a motion for reconsideration,[12] but it was denied in the Resolution[13] dated
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, the instant petition for certiorari is PARTLY GRANTED. The assailed decision dated
SO ORDERED.[14]
The
Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. Hence, petitioners now raise the following
issues:
I.
WHETHER OR NOT [PETITIONER-SPOUSES LIM] WERE
HIRED AS PERMANENT TEACHING PERSONNEL ON THE BASIS OF ESTABLISHED FACTS.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT [PETITIONER-SPOUSES LIM] WERE TERMINATED WITHOUT LAWFUL
AND JUST CAUSE OR CAUSES AND IN VIOLATION OF [PETITIONER-SPOUSES LIM’S] RIGHTS
TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT [PETITIONER-SPOUSES LIM] ARE
ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF OF REINSTATEMENT PLUS BACK WAGES, FROM THE TIME THEY
WERE UNLAWFULLY TERMINATED UNTIL ACTUAL REINSTATEMENT WITHOUT LOSS OF SENIORITY
RIGHTS AND OTHER PRIVILEGES INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION TO MORAL/EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES AS
Petitioners
contend that they were not issued any formal written probationary contract. They also contend that they were never
informed of reasonable standards under which they would be evaluated or rated
in connection with their supposed probationary period of employment. Thus, in the absence of a written contract of
employment, upon their satisfactory completion of their three-year probationary
period they contend that they are considered as, and became, regular and
permanent teaching personnel of the respondent school.[16]
Petitioners further
claim that they are full-time, not part-time, teaching personnel. They claim to have no other outside
remunerative occupation requiring regular hours of work that will conflict with
the working hours of the respondent school,[17] and in addition to their teaching jobs, they were performing
non-teaching functions like preparing lesson plans, checking of notebooks and
test papers, assisting during enrolment period, attending to school programs
and other tasks. They were required to
report as early as
On the other hand,
respondents argue that under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools,[19] a full-time
instructor is one who has a teaching load of at least 15 hours a week or is
paid on a full salary basis, while a part-time instructor is one who has a
teaching load of less than 15 hours a week.
Thus, according to respondents, since
petitioners have a teaching load that is less than 15 hours a week then
they are only part-time instructors and do not enjoy security of tenure.[20]
In resolving the
issue of whether or not petitioners were hired as permanent teaching personnel,
it is relevant to first determine whether petitioners are part-time or
full-time teachers. As found by both the
NLRC and the Court of Appeals, petitioners stated in their complaints that
their work schedules are “
Relevantly, the
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides:
Section 45. Full-time
and Part-time Faculty….
Full-time
academic personnel are those meeting all the following requirements:
a. Who possess at least the minimum academic qualifications prescribed
by the Department under this Manual for all academic personnel;
b. Who are paid monthly or hourly, based on the regular teaching loads
as provided for in the policies, rules and standards of the Department and the
school;
c. Whose total working day of
not more than eight hours a day is devoted to the school;
d. Who have no other
remunerative occupation elsewhere requiring regular hours of work that will
conflict with the working hours in the school; and
e. Who are not teaching full-time in any other educational institution.
All teaching personnel who do not meet the foregoing
qualifications are considered part-time. (Emphasis
supplied.)
x x x x
Section 92. Probationary Period. Subject in all instances to compliance with
Department and school requirements, the 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,…
Section 93. Regular or Permanent Status. Those who have served the probationary period
shall be made regular or permanent. Full-time teachers who have
satisfactorily completed their probationary period shall be considered regular
or permanent. (Emphasis supplied.)
In
The burden is on
petitioners to prove their affirmative allegation that they are permanent
teaching personnel. However, there is
not enough evidence on record to show that their total working day is devoted
to the school. There is no showing of
what the regular work schedule of a regular teacher in respondent school is. What is clear in the records is that Evelyn
and Alwyn spent two hours and four hours, respectively, but not the entire working day, at the respondent school. They
do not meet requirement “c” of Section 45 of the Manual. Hence, we sustain the findings of the Court
of Appeals that the petitioners are part-time teachers. Being part-time teachers, in accordance with
In this case, the
contracts of employment of the petitioners were not presented. It is in fact claimed that they have no
written contracts, and such contracts are not disclosed by the records in the
instant case. However on record,
attached as part of a pleading of petitioners, is a copy of the “TEACHERS’
GUIDELINES”[25]
of respondent school which, in part, state:
STATUS
& PRIVILEGES OF TEACHERS
1. New Teachers
a. New Teachers are on probation for three (3) years, within the duration,
they must submit a letter of re-application for each school year. After the expiration date of the contract, a
new one must be signed if it is sent to you.
b. A full time new teacher is under 10-month contract only. If his/her
performance is satisfactory, he/she will be rehired and will be entitled to
receive the salaries for the 2-month summer vacation. (Emphasis supplied.)
x
x x x
Considering that
petitioners were new teachers, then in accordance with the above-quoted
guidelines their unwritten contracts were considered to be for one school year
at a time, they being required to submit a letter of re-application for each
school year. After the end of each
school year, the school did not have any obligation to give them any teaching
loads, they being part-time teachers.[26] That
respondents did not give any teaching assignment to the petitioners after the
school year 2001-2002 did not amount to an actionable violation of petitioners’
right. It did not amount to illegal
dismissal.[27]
In view of the
foregoing finding that petitioners were not illegally dismissed, there is also
no basis to order their reinstatement and the payment of damages and attorney’s
fees to them.[28]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
WE CONCUR:
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
* Designated member of Second Division per Special Order No. 587 in place of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion who is on leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 97-105. Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Associate Justices Regalado E. Maambong and Lucenito N. Tagle concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] CA rollo, pp. 53-54.
[7]
[8] Rollo, pp. 39-40.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] U. Sarmiento III, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools Annotated, (1st ed., 1995).
[20]
[21] CA rollo, p. 40.
[22]
[23] G.R. No. 85519,
[24] La
[25] CA rollo, pp. 41-44.
[26] Saint
Mary’s University v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 157788, March 8, 2005, 453
SCRA 61, 68.
[27]
[28]