Palgan vs. Holy Name
University,
G.R. No. 219916, Feb.
10, 2021
Third Division [Hernando,
J]
Facts:
Petitioner
started working as a Casual or Assistant Clinical Instructor for two semesters
for school year (S.Y.) 1992-1993 in HNU's College of Nursing while awaiting the
results of her Nursing Board Examination. She alleged that upon her hiring, HNU
did not inform her of the standards for the evaluation of her satisfactory
completion of her probationary period.
In
the second semester of S.Y. 1994-1995, she was hired as a full-time Clinical
Instructor until S.Y. 1998-1999, and was assigned at the Medical Ward. During
the second semester of S.Y. 1998-1999, she was transferred to the Guidance
Center as a Nursing Guidance Instructor handling guidance, education, and
graduate school courses. At this time, she was elected as Municipal Councilor
of Carmen, Bohol. Upon her reelection as Municipal Councilor for the 2001-2004
term, she took a leave of absence from HNU.
Sometime
in the year 2004, petitioner rejoined HNU and was given a full-time load for the S.Y. 2004-2005.
For S.Y. 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, petitioner signed contracts for
term/semestral employment. However, in a notice dated February 28, 2007, HNU
informed Arlene that her contract of employment, which would have expired on
March 31, 2007, will no longer be renewed.
Arlene
argued that since she taught at HNU for more than six consecutive regular
semesters, she already attained the status of a regular employee pursuant to
the Manual of Regulations for Private School Teachers. There having been no
valid or justifiable cause for her dismissal as she was not guilty of any
infractions under the Labor Code or the Manual of Regulations for Private
School Teachers, petitioner claimed that her employment was illegally
terminated.
On
the other hand, respondents contended that in S.Y. 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and
2006-2007, Arlene remained a probationary employee. The completion of her
probationary period did not automatically make her a permanent employee since
she failed to comply with all the conditions of her probationary employment
satisfactorily. Respondents insisted that petitioner was not dismissed; rather,
her contract of employment merely expired on March 31, 2007.
The
Arbiter dismissed Arlene's complaint for lack of merit. Since her employment
was probationary in nature, she has no vested right yet to a permanent
appointment until after the completion of the pre-requisite three-year period
for the acquisition of a permanent status.
The
NLRC denied Arlene's appeal and affirmed the ruling of the Arbiter. Palgan
filed Motion for Reconsideration, which the NLRC granted. NLRC held that Palgan
was illegally dismissed. CA reversed the decision of NLRC and held that Palgan
was not illegally dismissed.
Issue:
Whether
CA erred in reversing the decision of NLRC.
Held:
No; the
governing law for the employment status of teachers/professors/instructors are
the manuals of regulations for private schools.
In
Lacuesta v. Ateneo de Manila University (Lacuesta), We held that the Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools and not the Labor Code determines whether or
not a faculty member in a private educational institution has attained a
permanent or regular status.
Petitioner
did not meet all the criteria required to be considered as a permanent
employee. We have laid down in Lacuesta the following requisites before a
private school teacher acquires permanent status, namely: 1) The teacher serves full-time; 2)
he/she must have rendered three consecutive years of service; and 3) such
service must have been satisfactory.
These
requisites find basis in Sections 92 and 93 of the 1992 Manual, which provide: 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, 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.
While petitioner has rendered
three consecutive years of satisfactory service, she was, however, not a
full-time teacher at the College of Nursing of HNU. It must be stressed
that only a full-time teaching
personnel can acquire regular or permanent status. This rule has been
reiterated in a long line of cases, one of which is Herrera-Manaois v. St.
Scholastica's College, where We held: "In the light of the failure of
Manaois to satisfy the academic requirements for the position, she may only be
considered as a part-time instructor pursuant to Section 45 of the 1992 Manual.
In turn, as we have enunciated in a line of cases, a part-time member of the
academic personnel cannot acquire permanence of employment and security of
tenure under the Manual of Regulations in relation to the Labor Code. We thus
quote the ruling of this Court in Lacuesta."
Petitioner
was never qualified to be a full-time faculty due to the apparent lack of the
required clinical experience under the governing law and its relevant
regulations. 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.
Petitioner's
experience as clinical instructor cannot be considered as "clinical
practice experience" as there
is no substantial evidence on record that would prove
that petitioner actually engaged in activities that may be considered as
clinical practice within the ambit of the law.
Evidence
on record would reveal that petitioner was hired by HNU as a
"full-time" clinical instructor assigned at the medical ward from
1994-1997. From 1998-2002, Arlene worked as a "part-time" faculty
member until she was again hired in 2004.
The
evidence on record would show that petitioner was not illegally dismissed since
no dismissal occurred in the first place. Her fixed-term contract merely
expired.
No comments:
Post a Comment