Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
St. Mary’s |
|
G.R. No. 164913 |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
- versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teresita Palacio, |
|
VELASCO, JR., |
|
Marigen Calibod, |
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
Levie Laquio, Elaine |
|
|
|
Marie Santander, |
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
Eliza Saile, and ma. |
|
|
|
Dolores Montederamos, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
September 8, 2010 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
The
Court will not hesitate to defend the workers’ constitutional right to security
of tenure. After all, the interest of
the workers is paramount as they are regarded with compassion under the policy
of social justice.
By this Petition
for Review on Certiorari,[1]
petitioner St. Mary’s Academy of Dipolog City (petitioner) assails the Decision[2]
dated September 24, 2003 and Resolution[3]
dated August 16, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67691,
which affirmed with modification the Resolution[4]
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), dated April 30, 2001 holding
the dismissal of respondents Teresita Palacio (Palacio), Marigen Calibod
(Calibod), Levie Laquio (Laquio), Elaine Marie Santander (Santander), Eliza
Saile (Saile), and Ma. Dolores Montederamos (Montederamos) as illegal, as well
as the Resolution[5]
dated August 31, 2001 denying the motion for reconsideration.
Factual
Antecedents
On different dates in the late
1990’s, petitioner hired respondents Calibod, Laquio, Santander, Saile and
Montederamos, as classroom teachers, and respondent Palacio, as guidance
counselor. In separate letters dated
March 31, 2000,[6] however,
petitioner informed them that their re-application for school year 2000-2001 could
not be accepted because they failed to pass the Licensure Examination for
Teachers (LET). According to petitioner,
as non-board passers, respondents could not continue practicing their teaching
profession pursuant to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS)
Memorandum No. 10, S. 1998[7]
which requires incumbent teachers to register as professional teachers pursuant
to Section 27[8] of
Republic Act (RA) No. 7836, otherwise known as the Philippine Teachers
Professionalization Act of 1994.[9]
Together with four other classroom
teachers namely Gail Josephine Padilla (Padilla), Virgilio Andalahao
(Andalahao), Alma Decipulo (Decipulo),[10]
and Marlynn Palacio,[11]
who were similarly dismissed by petitioner on the same ground, respondents
filed a complaint contesting their termination as highly irregular and
premature. They admitted that they are
indeed non-board passers, however, they also argued that their security of
tenure could not simply be trampled upon for their failure to register with the
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) or to pass the LET prior to the
deadline set by RA 7836. Further, as the
aforesaid law provides for exceptions to the taking of examination, they opined
that their outright dismissal was illegal because some of them possessed civil
service eligibilities and special permits to teach. Furthermore, petitioner’s retention and
acceptance of other teachers who do not also possess the required eligibility
showed evident bad faith in terminating respondents.
Petitioner, on the other hand,
maintained that it had repeatedly informed respondents of their obligation to
comply with the mandate of the Memorandum issued by DECS by passing the LET to
be eligible as a registered professional teacher. While the DECS Memorandum, pursuant to PRC
Resolution No. 600, S. 1997,[12]
fixed the deadline for teachers to register on September 19, 2000,[13]
petitioner claimed that it decided to terminate their services as early as
March 31, 2000 because it would be prejudicial to the school if their services
will be terminated in the middle of the school year.
Ruling of the
Labor Arbiter
On September 22, 2000, the Labor
Arbiter adjudged petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal because it terminated
the services of the respondents on March 31, 2000 which was clearly prior to
the September 19, 2000 deadline fixed by PRC for the registration of teachers
as professional teachers, in violation of the doctrine regarding the
prospective application of laws. Thus, petitioner
was ordered to reinstate the respondents or to pay them separation pay at the
rate of ½ month wage for every year of service, plus limited backwages covering
the period from March 31, 2000 to September 30, 2000. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter’s
Decision reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, anchored on the foregoing premises,
judgment is hereby rendered:
1.)
that respondent’s
act of having terminated the complainants’ employment is in fact and in law
illegal, as it is not founded on any of the restricted just and authorized
causes provided for by law[,] hence, entitling complainants to the right of
reinstatement and backwages in accordance with the mandate of Article 279 of
the Labor Code of the Philippines. In this case, however, separation pay is
hereby directed against respondent together with the payment of limited
backwages, as particularly reflected in paragraph “2” hereof;
2.)
ordering
respondent St. Mary’s Academy to pay complainants their separation pay and
limited backwages, particularly indicated as follows:
A.) Teresita
Palacio:
|
a.) Separation pay . . . . . .
. . . b.) Limited backwages . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . |
27,002.16;
|
B.) Gail Josephine Padilla:
|
a.) Separation pay . . . . . .
. . . b.) Limited backwages . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . |
26,512.20;
|
C.) Marigen Calibod:
|
a.) Separation pay . . . . . .
. . . b.) Limited backwages . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . |
26,512.20;
|
D.) Levei
Laquio:
|
a.) Separation pay . . . . . .
. . . b.) Limited backwages . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . |
27,307.56;
|
E.) Elaine
Marie Santander:
|
a.) Separation pay . . . . . .
. . . b.) Limited backwages . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . |
26,512.20;
|
F.) Virgilio Andalahao:
|
a.) Separation pay . . . . . .
. . . b.) Limited backwages . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . |
25,740.00;
|
G.) Alma Decipulo:
|
a.) Separation pay . . . . . .
. . . b.) Limited backwages . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . |
25,740.00;
|
H.) Eliza
Saile:
|
a.) Separation pay . . . . . .
. . . b.) Limited backwages . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . |
28,970.58;
|
I.) Marlynn Palacio:
|
a.) Separation pay . . . . . .
. . . b.) Limited backwages . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . |
25,740.00; |
J.)
Ma.
Dolores Montederamos:
|
a.) Separation pay . . . . . .
. . . b.) Limited backwages . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . |
27,307.56; |
3.)
dismissing
all other money claims of complainants for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Ruling of the National
Labor Relations Commission
Both parties appealed to the NLRC. In its Memorandum of Appeal,[15]
petitioner insisted on the validity of respondents’ termination from service,
such act being in compliance with RA 7836 and in accordance with DECS
Memorandum No. 10, S. 1998. Respondents,
for their part, did not question the merits of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision but
prayed for the refund of their retirement contribution and payment of
attorney’s fees.
The NLRC, in its Resolution[16]
dated April 30, 2001, denied both appeals. In affirming the Labor Arbiter’s Decision, it
held that the grounds relied upon by petitioner to dismiss respondents are not
among those enumerated by the Labor Code and that respondents are regular
employees, thus cannot be removed unless for cause. The NLRC did not grant
respondents’ demand for the refund of their retirement contribution because
this was not alleged in the original complaint as well as their prayer for
attorney’s fees since this case is not one for collection of unlawfully
withheld wages.
In a subsequent Resolution dated
August 31, 2001,[17]
the NLRC likewise denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration,[18]
reiterating that it cannot sustain petitioner’s premature implementation of relevant
laws and regulations.
Ruling of the Court
of Appeals
Petitioner, then, elevated the case
to the CA via a petition for certiorari.[19]
The CA agreed with the findings of both
the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the dismissal was effected prematurely in
violation of existing laws, noting that respondents still had until September 19,
2000 within which to pass the LET. A
contingency plan, according to the CA, should have instead been adopted by
petitioner in the event respondents’ termination from the service in the middle
of the school year becomes inevitable. The
CA also observed that petitioner’s ulterior motive for the termination may have
been the result of a confrontation between petitioner’s principal and
respondents. The CA also found petitioner’s
acts of retaining and hiring other equally unqualified teachers who do not
possess the required eligibility and allowing them to teach for the school year
2000-2001 as badges of bad faith.
As regards Padilla, Marlynn Palacio,
Andalahao and Decipulo, the CA found them to be mere probationary, and not
regular, employees. Their employment contracts
merely expired and since the petitioner did not wish to renew their contracts,
then there is no illegal dismissal to speak of.
Accordingly, the dispositive portion
of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Resolutions of the NLRC,
Fifth Division dated April 30, 2001, [is] hereby affirmed with modification. The monetary awards adjudged in favor of
private respondents Gail Josephine Padilla, Virgilio Andalahao, Alma Decipolo
and Merlyn Palacio whose services were legally terminated, are hereby DELETED
for lack of basis.
SO
ORDERED.[20]
Petitioner moved
to partially reconsider the Decision insofar as it found the dismissal of herein
respondents to be premature and prayed that respondents be declared legally
dismissed from the service. The CA,
however, denied the motion.
Hence, this
petition.
Issues
I. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRIEVOUS
ERROR IN HOLDING THAT THE DISMISSAL OF TERESITA PALACIO, MARIGEN CALIBOD, LEVIE
LAQUIO, ELAINE MARIE SANTANDER, ELIZA SAILE, AND DOLORES MONTEDERAMOS, WAS PREMATURE
BECAUSE IT WAS EFFECTED ON MARCH 31, 2000 PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 20, 2000,[21]
THE DEADLINE SET BY THE PROFESSIONAL [REGULATION] COMMISSION FOR TEACHERS TO
ACQUIRE THEIR LICENSE.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
FAILING TO CONSIDER THAT ASSUMING THAT RESPONDENTS WERE “PREMATURELY”
TERMINATED IN MARCH 2000, AT THE MOST, RESPONDENTS ARE ENTITLED TO BACKWAGES UP
TO SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 ONLY BECAUSE ON SUCH DATE, THEY WERE ALREADY DISMISSIBLE FOR
CAUSE FOR NOT HAVING OBTAINED THEIR TEACHERS’ LICENSE.[22]
Petitioner insists that it has the right
to terminate respondents’ services as early as March 2000 without waiting for
the September 19, 2000 deadline set by law for respondents to register as
professional teachers due to the need to fix the school organization prior to
the applicable school year. Petitioner
justifies respondents’ termination by advancing that it would be difficult to hire
licensed teachers in the middle of the school year as respondents’ replacements.
Also, the termination of respondents in
the middle of the school year might result in compromising the education of the
students as well as the school operation. Petitioner further argues that it cannot hire
respondents for the period covering only June to September as it would contravene
the DECS’s policy requiring written contracts of at least one year’s duration
for teachers.
Our Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit.
The dismissal of Teresita Palacio,
Calibod, Laquio, Santander, and Montederamos was premature and defeated their
right to security of tenure. Saile’s dismissal has legal basis for lack of the
required qualification needed for continued practice of teaching.
Pertinent provisions of RA 7836
provide:
SEC.
13. Examination, Registration and
License Required. – Except as
otherwise specifically allowed under the provisions of this Act, all applicants
for registration as professional teachers shall be required to undergo a
written examination which shall be given at least once a year in such places
and dates as the Board may determine upon approval by the Commission. A valid
certificate of registration and a valid professional license from the
Commission are required before any person is allowed to practice as a
professional teacher in the
x
x x x
SEC. 26. Registration and Exception. – Two (2)
years after the effectivity of this Act, no person shall engage in teaching
and/or act as a professional teacher as defined in this Act, whether in the
preschool, elementary or secondary level, unless he is a duly registered
professional teacher, and a holder of a valid certificate of registration and a
valid professional license or a holder of a valid special/temporary permit.
Upon
approval of the application and payment of the prescribed fees, the certificate
of registration and professional license as a professional teacher shall be
issued without examination as required in this Act to a qualified applicant,
who at the time of the approval of this Act, is:
(a)
A holder of a certificate of eligibility as a teacher issued by the
Civil Service Commission and the Department of Education, Culture and Sports;
or
(b)
A registered professional teacher with the National Board for Teachers
under the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) pursuant to
Presidential Decree No. 1006; or
(c) Not qualified under paragraphs one and two
but with any of the following qualifications, to wit:
(1)
An elementary or secondary teacher for five (5) years in good standing and a
holder of a Bachelor of Science in Education or its equivalent; or
(2) An elementary or
secondary teacher for three (3) years in good standing and a holder of a
master’s degree in education or its equivalent.
Provided, That they shall be given two
(2) years from the organization of the Board for professional teachers within
which to register and be included in the roster of professional teachers: Provided,
further, That those incumbent teachers who are not qualified to register
without examination under this Act or who, albeit qualified, were unable to
register within the two-year period shall be issued a five-year temporary or
special permit from the time the Board is organized within which to register
after passing the examination and complying with the requirements provided in
this Act and be included in the roster of professional teachers: Provided,
furthermore, That those who have failed the licensure examination for
professional teachers shall be eligible as para-teachers and as such, shall be
issued by the Board a special or temporary permit, and shall be assigned by the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) to schools as it may
determine under the circumstances.
x x x x
SEC.
27. Inhibition Against the Practice
of the Teaching Profession. – Except
as otherwise allowed under this Act, no person shall practice or offer to
practice the teaching profession in the Philippines or be appointed as teacher
to any position without having previously obtained a valid certificate of
registration and a valid professional license from the Commission.
x x x x
SEC. 31. Transitory Provision. – All incumbent
teachers in both the public and private sector not otherwise certified as
professional teachers by virtue of this Act, shall be given five (5) years
temporary certificates from the time the Board for Professional Teachers is
organized within which to qualify as required by this Act and be included in
the roster of professionals.
Pursuant to RA 7836, the PRC
formulated certain rules and regulations relative to the registration of
teachers and their continued practice of the teaching profession. Specific periods and deadlines were fixed within
which incumbent teachers must register as professional teachers in consonance with
the essential purpose of the law in promoting good quality education by
ensuring that those who practice the teaching profession are duly licensed and
are registered as professional teachers.
Under DECS Memorandum No. 10, S.
1998, the Board for Professional Teachers (BPT), created under the general
supervision and administrative control of the PRC, was organized on September
20, 1995 so that, in the implementation of Sections 26, 27 and 31 of RA 7836,
incumbent teachers as of December 16, 1994 have until September 19, 1997 to
register as professional teachers. The Memorandum
further stated that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was subsequently entered
into by the PRC, Civil Service Commission (CSC) and DECS to further allow those
teachers who failed to register by September 19, 1997 to continue their service
and register. BPT Resolution No. 600, s.
1997 was thereafter passed to provide the guidelines[23]
to govern teacher registration beyond September 19, 1997. Consequently, the deadline was moved to
September 19, 2000.
Pursuant
to the aforestated law, resolution and memorandum, effective
It
is undisputed that respondents were all non-board passers when they were
dismissed by petitioner on March 31, 2000. Based on the certification issued by the PRC
on October 23, 2000,[25]
only respondent
Petitioner
claims that it terminated respondents’ employment as early as March 2000
because it would be highly difficult to hire professional teachers in the middle
of the school year as replacements for respondents without compromising the
operation of the school and education of the students. Also, petitioner reasons out that it could
not enter into written contracts with respondents for the period June 2000 to
September 19, 2000 without violating the DECS’s policy requiring contracts of
yearly duration for elementary and high school teachers.
Petitioner’s
contentions are not tenable. First, even
if respondents’ contracts stipulate for a period of one year in compliance with
DECS’s directive, such stipulation could not be given effect for being
violative of the law. Provisions in a
contract must be read in conjunction with statutory and administrative
regulations. This finds basis on the
principle “that an existing law enters into and forms part of a valid contract
without the need for the parties expressly making reference to it.”[27]
Settled is the rule that stipulations made upon the convenience of the parties
are valid only if they are not contrary to law.[28]
Hence, mere reliance on the policy of DECS
requiring yearly contracts for teachers should not prevent petitioner from
retaining the services of respondents until and unless the law provides for
cause for respondents’ dismissal.
Petitioner’s
intention and desire not to put the students’ education and school operation in
jeopardy is neither a decisive consideration for respondents’ termination prior
to the deadline set by law. Again, by
setting a deadline for registration as professional teachers, the law has
allowed incumbent teachers to practice their teaching profession until
September 19, 2000, despite being unregistered and unlicensed. The prejudice that respondents’ retention would
cause to the school’s operation is only trivial if not speculative as compared
to the consequences of respondents’ unemployment. Because of petitioner’s predicament, it should
have adopted measures to protect the interest of its teachers as regular
employees. As correctly observed by the
CA, petitioner should have earlier drawn a contingency plan in the event there
is need to terminate respondents’ services in the middle of the school year. Incidentally, petitioner did not dispute that
it hired and retained other teachers who do not likewise possess the
qualification and eligibility and even allowed them to teach during the school
year 2000-2001. This indicates
petitioner’s ulterior motive in hastily dismissing respondents.
It
is incumbent upon this Court to afford full protection to labor. Thus, while we take cognizance of the employer’s
right to protect its interest, the same should be exercised in a manner which
does not infringe on the workers’ right to security of tenure. “Under the policy of social justice, the law
bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the
humane justification that those with less privilege in life should have more in
law.”[29]
To
reiterate, this Court will not hesitate to defend respondents’ right to
security of tenure. The premature dismissal
from the service of respondents Palacio, Calibod, Laquio, Santander and
Montederamos is unwarranted. However,
we take exception to the case of respondent Saile who, as alleged by petitioner,
was not qualified to take the LET as she only had three out of the minimum 10
required educational units to be admitted to take the LET pursuant to Section
15 of RA 7836,[30]
which fact respondent Saile did not refute. Not being qualified to take the examination to
become a duly licensed professional teacher, petitioner cannot be compelled to
retain her services as she cannot possibly obtain the needed prerequisite to
allow her to continue practicing the teaching profession. Thus, we find her
termination just and legal.
Limited backwages computed from
March 31, 2000 to September 30, 2000 awarded in favor of Palacio, Calibod,
Laquio, Santander and Montederamos are sustained.
Petitioner questions the amount of
separation pay awarded to respondents contending that assuming respondents were
illegally dismissed, they are only entitled to an amount computed from the time
of dismissal up to
This contention
deserves no merit. Petitioner cannot possibly presume that respondents could
not timely comply with the requirements of the law. At any rate, we note that petitioner
only assailed the amount of backwages for the first time in its motion for reconsideration
of the Decision of the CA. Thus, the
Court cannot entertain the issue for being belatedly raised. Hence, the award of limited backwages covering
the period from March 31, 2000 to September 30, 2000 as ruled by the Labor
Arbiter and affirmed by both the NLRC and CA is in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is partially
GRANTED. The Decision of the Court
of Appeals dated September 24, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 67691 finding respondents
Teresita Palacio, Marigen Calibod, Levie Laquio, Elaine Marie Santander and Ma.
Dolores Montederamos to have been illegally dismissed and awarding them
separation pay and limited backwages is AFFIRMED. As regards respondent Eliza
Saile, we find her termination valid and legal.
Consequently, the awards of separation pay and limited backwages in her
favor are DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
JOSE
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified 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.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 10-35.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Petitioner’s letter dated March 31, 2000
to Santander and
[7] Dated January 12, 1998.
[8] SEC. 27.
Inhibition Against the Practice of the Teaching Profession.-- Except as otherwise allowed under this
Act, no person shall practice or offer to practice the teaching profession in
the
[9] AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE REGULATION AND
SUPERVISION OF THE PRACTICE OF TEACHING IN THE
[10] Referred also as Alma Decipolo in some parts
of the records.
[11] Referred also as Merlyn Palacio in some
parts of the records.
[12] Issued on November 13, 1997.
[13] DECS Memorandum No. 10, S. 1998 erroneously
indicated the deadline as September 20, 2000.
[14] Rollo, pp.163-166.
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Should be September 19, 2000.
[22] Rollo, p. 22.
[23] I. Coverage
A. Incumbent teachers [full-time] or part-time, as of December 16, 1994 in public and private schools at the pre-school, elementary and secondary levels who were unable to register with PRC as of September 19, 1997.
1. Those not qualified to register without exam
2. Those qualified to register without exam
2.1 CSC eligibles (Category A)
2.2 PBET eligibles (Category B)
2.3 With BSE/BSEE or equivalent with at least 10 units of professional education for secondary school teachers and at least 5 years of experience (Category C)
2.4 With [master’s] degree in education or equivalent and at least 3 years of experience (Category D)
B. Non-passers
in the LET between 1996 and 2000
C. Those
performing supervisory and/or administrative functions at the pre-school,
elementary and secondary levels, including Principals, Supervisors,
Superintendents, Regional Directors, Bureau/Center Directors, Guidance
Counselors, and Researchers.
II. General Rules
A. For Incumbent teachers Unable to Register before September 19, 1997.
1.
Those not qualified to register without
examination must qualify by passing the LET between 1997 and 2000.
x x x x
B. LET non-passers between 1996 and 2000
shall submit with their applications for permit as para teachers their
respective reports of rating.
x x x x
II[I.] Specific Rules
x x x x
5. Those who fail to register by September 19, 2000 shall forfeit their privilege to practice the teaching profession for abandonment of responsibility.
[24] See PRC Press Release “PRC Clarifies Professional Teachers’ Deadline”, CA rollo, pp. 182-183.
[25] Annex “2” of petitioner’s Memorandum of Appeal with the NLRC, rollo, p. 136.
[26] BPT Resolution No. 98-183, Series of 1998 was issued to implement Section 26 of RA 7836 regarding the issuance of special or temporary permits to those who have failed the licensure examination for professional teachers to become eligible as para teachers who may be assigned by the DECS to schools located in places where no professional teachers are available; see also BPT Resolution No. 600, series of 1997 which provides that LET non-passers between 1996 and 2000 may apply as para teachers.
[27] Escorpizo v.
[28] New Civil Code, Article 1306.
[29] Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 487 Phil 531, 599 (2004).
[30] SEC. 15. Qualification Requirements of Applicants. – No applicant shall be admitted to take the examination unless, on the date of filing of the application, he shall have complied with the following requirements:
x x x x
(e) A graduate of a school, college or university recognized by the government and possesses the minimum educational qualifications, as follows:
x x x x
(3) For teachers in the secondary grades, a bachelor’s degree in education or its equivalent with a major and minor, or a bachelor’s degree in arts and sciences with at least ten (10) units in professional education; and
x x x x