Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1992 > October 1992 Decisions > G.R. No. 94523 October 27, 1992 - ST. THERESITA’S ACADEMY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 94523. October 27, 1992.]

ST. THERESITA’S ACADEMY AND/OR THE SERVANTS OF ST. JOSEPH, Represented by SR. ANITA BAGO, Petitioners, v. THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and LILIA ARIOLA, Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; REGULAR AND CASUAL EMPLOYMENT; DISTINGUISHED. — Article 280 of the Labor Code defines regular employment as follows: "ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. "An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; APPLICATION TO SCHOOL TEACHERS; CASE AT BAR. — With respect to school teachers, paragraph 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides: "Full-time teachers who have rendered three (3) years of satisfactory service shall be considered permanent." The record shows that after Ariola retired in 1976, she was rehired three (3) years later and rendered four (4) more years of satisfactory service to the petitioner in the school years 1979-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982, and 1982-1983. When she was rehired in 1979 she did not have to undergo the 3-year probationary employment for new teachers for her teaching competence had already been tried and tested during her 22 years of service to the school in 1954 to 1976. She reentered the service in 1979 as a regular or permanent teacher. She could not be discharged solely on account of the expiration of her fourth annual contract. She could only be dismissed for cause and with due process, as provided in Article 279 of the Labor Code.


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


Petition for certiorari with application for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order to annul and/or set aside the resolution dated July 2, 1990 or the Fourth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (Cebu City) (NLRC, for short), affirming with modification the decision dated August 14, 1987 of the Labor Arbiter of Bacolod City in RAB-VI-Case No. 0201-83. The dispositive portion of the decision of the NLRC reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREFORE, the appeal filed by respondents is hereby dismissed for lack of merit and the decision of the Labor Arbiter dated August 14, 1987 is hereby MODIFIED. Respondent is hereby ordered to pay complainant her backwages limited to three (3) years without deduction and qualification starting April 1933. In lieu of reinstatement, respondents are hereby ordered to give separation pay to herein complainant computed at the rate of one month’s salary for every year of service from June 1979 up to March 1986, the end of the three (3) year rule on backwages." (p. 39, Rollo.)chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The private respondent, Lilia G. Ariola, had been employed as a school teacher since the school year 1954-55 up to the school year 1975-76 (or for 22 continuous years). She retired on March 30, 1976 with separation benefits in the amount of P4,927.30. For a while, she worked as an insurance underwriter. In 1979, the Mother Superior invited her to go back as a school teacher because the school needed qualified and good teachers in Mathematics and English. The complainant accepted on condition that she should be considered a regular teacher and not as a newly hired teacher. That condition was accepted without hesitation. She signed a contract with the school which was renewable yearly.

Complainant and her co-teachers were paid summer living allowance in 1979-1980 and 1980-1981. However, in June 1981, that amount was deducted from their salaries. Complainant and her co-teachers protested against the deduction. A meeting was called by the school to explain that the payment of the summer living allowance had been a mistake, hence, it must be paid back to the school. Another meeting was called by the Mother Superior to discuss the legality of the deduction and/or nonpayment of the summer living allowance. In that meeting the complainant and her co-teachers pleaded for the revival of the summer living allowance but they were advised by the Mother Superior that the school could not afford to give it to them. The matter was referred to the Ministry of Labor and Employment. Because of the agitation for the payment of the summer living allowance, the Siervas de San Jose, which owns and operates respondent school in Silay City, held a board meeting on January 19, 1983 (Exhibit I), wherein it was resolved that effective school year 1983-84, no Siervas de San Jose School shall rehire a retired teacher and that any rehired retiree who is at present a member of the faculty shall be notified that her/his Teacher’s Contract will not be renewed for the coming year.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

After four (4) years of continuous satisfactory service, complainant was notified on March 1, 1983 that her contract would no longer be renewed at the end of the school year 1982-83. A report was made to the office of the Ministry of Labor and Employment regarding the impending termination of her teacher’s contract (Annex E).

On April 7, 1985, private respondent filed in the NLRC, National Arbitration Branch No. VI in Bacolod City, a complaint against the petitioner for Illegal Dismissal praying for reinstatement with backwages, ECOLA, non-payment of allowances, underpayment of 13th month pay and damages.

On August 14, 1987, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision ordering the petitioner to pay the private respondent separation pay computed at one-half (1/2) month for every year of her 4-year service with the school.

On appeal by the school to the NLRC, the latter ruled that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) the year-to-year contract between petitioner and private respondent violated Art. 280 of the Labor Code, hence, despite the fixed period provided therein, private respondent became a "regular" employee who could not be dismissed except for cause;

(2) when the year-to-year contracts went beyond three years, private respondent became a "regular" or "permanent" employee, pursuant to Sec. 75 of the Manual of Regulations for private schools, which provides that "full-time teachers who have rendered three consecutive years of satisfactory service shall be considered permanent" (p. 11, Rollo); and

(3) the policy of the school of no longer renewing the year-to-year contracts of teachers who had been recalled from retirement, violated the security of tenure of the complainant.

On July 2, 1990, the NLRC issued the resolution quoted earlier in this decision.

In its petition for review of that decision, the petitioner alleges that:.

1. the NLRC decision is clearly contrary to the decision of this Court;

2. the NLRC ruling confuses the three year-to-year probationary contracts given to new teachers before they become "regular and permanent," with the year-to-year or other fixed period contract given to teachers who are being recalled from retirement; for the year-to-year contracts with retired teacher is not intended to test the teacher’s fitness to be hired on a permanent basis, unlike a new teacher who must first be tested; andcralawnad

3. it is the prerogative of an employer to adopt a policy of not rehiring retired teachers and of not renewing the annual contracts of teachers who have been recalled from retirement.

A review of the records of this case shows that the NLRC did not abuse its discretion in affirming with modification the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Article 280 of the Labor Code defines regular employment as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ARTICLE 280. Regular and Casual Employment. — The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.

"An employment shall be deemed to be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided, That any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which is employed and his employment shall continue while such actually exists." (Emphasis supplied.)

With respect to school teachers, paragraph 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Full-time teachers who have rendered three (3) years of satisfactory service shall be considered permanent." (p. 63, Rollo.).

Furthermore, paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Teacher’s Contract which the petitioner and the private respondent signed, categorically stipulated:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

"7. This CONTRACT SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT during the school year 1982-1983 from June to March, unless sooner terminated by either party for valid causes and approved by the Director of Private Schools. In the absence of valid cause(s) for termination of services, this CONTRACT shall be rendered the teacher shall have gained a Regular or Permanent Status, pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.

"9. This CONTRACT shall not affect the Permanent Status of the teacher, even if entered into every school provided that the Probationary Period for new shall be three (3) years." (Emphasis supplied, p.-79, Rollo.)

The record shows that after Ariola retired in 1976, she was rehired three (3) years later and rendered four (4) more years of satisfactory service to the petitioner in the school years 1979-1980, 1980-1981, 1981-1982, and 1982-1983.

When she was rehired in 1979 she did not have to undergo the 3-year probationary employment for new teachers for her teaching competence had already been tried and tested during her 22 years of service to the school in 1954 to 1976. She re-entered the service in 1979 as a regular or permanent teacher. She could not be discharged solely on account of the expiration of her fourth annual contract. She could only be dismissed for cause and with due process, as provided in Article 279 of the Labor Code.

The NLRC did not abuse its discretion in holding that her dismissal from the service, on account of the expiration of her annual contract, was illegal and that the school is liable to pay her backwages and separation pay.

WHEREFORE; the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED, with costs against the petitioner.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., is on leave.

Padilla, J., took no part, former lawyer of Servants of St. Joseph.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1992 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 101344 October 1, 1992 - ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 46395 October 2, 1992 - ARSENIA LACATAN-NUNEZ v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79374 October 2, 1992 - TOMAS G. MAPA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80256 October 2, 1992 - BANKERS & MANUFACTURERS ASSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83369 October 2, 1992 - PACITA J. BAGUIORO v. MARIANO Y. BASA, JR.

  • G.R. Nos. 84902-03 October 2, 1992 - AGRIPINO PADRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90530 October 7, 1992 - INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMINAL SERVICES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93406 October 7, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER AREVALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93474 October 7, 1992 - VIRGINIA OCAMPO JUAREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98093 October 8, 1992 - PRIMA K. GOBANTES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSlON, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 90440-42 October 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LI WAI CHEUNG

  • G.R. No. 92416 October 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JEFFREY LOGRONIO

  • G.R. No. 97651 October 13, 1992 - OSCAR C. VALLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100754 October 13, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRENE D. SIMBULAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101438 October 13, 1992 - CATHEDRAL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102787 October 13, 1992 - YUSOPH C. TAMANO v. RAUL S. MANGLAPUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96617 October 14, 1992 - LOLITA B. JAVIER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95492 October 15, 1992 - MIDLAND INSURANCE CORPORATION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100797 October 15, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HADJI JAID HASIRON

  • G.R. No. 47890 October 16, 1992 - ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. WISE & COMPANY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65663 October 16, 1992 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85466 October 16, 1992 - HUALAM CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85517 October 16, 1992 - DOROTEO OCHEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97240 October 16, 1992 - JESUS T. DAVID v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100773 October 16, 1992 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70789 October 19, 1992 - RUSTAN PULP & PAPER MILLS, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75584 October 19, 1992 - VICENTE PALO-PALO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82770 October 19, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO V. PAJARIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90452 October 19, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO JAYMALIN

  • G.R. No. 90603 October 16, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGEL S. FABROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91869 October 19, 1992 - MARCELINA SAPU-AN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92020 October 19, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO A. MARTINADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103328 October 19, 1992 - ROY A. PADILLA, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC October 20, 1992 - FLORENCIA SEALANA-ABBU v. FLORANTE E. MADRONO

  • G.R. No. 35947 October 20, 1992 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM LI YAO

  • G.R. No. 92849 October 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIRZO CELIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97227 October 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CECILIO BINONDO

  • G.R. No. 97389 October 20, 1992 - SPS. ALEX BUSANTE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97433 October 20, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. APOLINARIO SARENSE

  • G.R. No. 106971 October 20, 1992 - TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., ET AL v. NEPTALI A. GONZALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78161 October 21, 1992 - CRESENCIO LIMCAY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83105 October 21, 1992 - MAGDALENA M. FERMIN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96432 October 21, 1992 - LORENZO P. LESACA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96469 October 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. 96621 October 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEY B. BODOZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100909 October 21, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOLITO TENA

  • G.R. No. 103119 October 21, 1992 - SULPICIO INTOD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44112 October 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPULO DE LOS REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75954 October 22, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID G. NITAFAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100091 October 22, 1992 - CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80418-19 October 23, 1992 - EDUARDO ROSALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88113 October 23, 1992 - SPS. TITUS L. ENDAYA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 89804 October 23, 1992 - CALVIN S. ARCILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106522 October 23, 1992 - ARNOLD VEGAFRIA v. CATALINO CASTAÑEDA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78173 October 26, 1992 - ANDRES SUMAOANG v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH XXXI, GUIMBA, NUEVA ECIJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95259 October 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO PERAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98152-53 October 26, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO G. PASILIAO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-91-600 October 27, 1992 - EMMANUEL RAMOS v. JOSELITO SD. GENEROSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94523 October 27, 1992 - ST. THERESITA’S ACADEMY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 95333 October 27, 1992 - SPS. FRAULIN A. PEÑASALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95684 October 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELORDE ANTUD

  • G.R. No. 95816 October 27, 1992 - PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104906 October 27, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALTAZAR ESTRAÑA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 67973 October 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO G. LAGMAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88954 October 29, 1992 - DATU SAMAD MANGELEN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90637 October 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRUDENCIO PUGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100916 October 29, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JONATHAN L. PADUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84841 October 30, 1992 - SPS. SALUSTIANO OCA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97495 October 30, 1992 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO MANCAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100643 October 30, 1992 - ADEZ REALTY, INCORPORATED v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102904 October 30, 1992 - PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION v. M.V. ZILEENA, ET AL.