Labor Law 1
A2010 - 142 -
NATIONAL MINES AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION VSAN ILDEFEONSO COLLEGE, ETC.
299 SCRA 24DAVIDE JR; November 20, 1998
Petition for certiorari seeking to set aside an NLRC decision andresolution denying a motion for reconsideration
- National Mines and Allied Workers’ Union is the certifiedbargaining agent of the rank and file employees of respondentCollege. Petitioner Juliet Arroyo was the president of the SanIldefonso College Association of Faculty and Personnel, anaffiliate of NAMAWU. Private respondent Lloren is the directressof the College.- In February, 1991, ARROYO, a “tenured teacher” who laterbecame a part-time teacher, asked that she be allowed to teachon a full-time basis. The COLLEGE denied her request for herfailure to “make use of the privilege” of her study leave in thetwo years she was allowed to do so. The next month, the otherindividual petitioners, who were issued yearly appointment,were informed of the non-renewal of their respective contracts.- In April, 1991, the SICAFP was formalized into a labor unionaffiliated with NAMAWU.- The petitioners and NAMAWU filed a complaint for illegaldismissal, unfair labor practice, forced resignation, harassment,underpayment of wages, non-payment of service incentiveleave pay, and violation of Waeg Order No. IV-1. Theydemanded reinstatement and payment of back wages.- The Labor Arbiter held private respondents guilty of illegaldismissal, unfair labor practice interfering with the organizationof the labor union. The contracts of employment were notbilateral agreements, but letters of appointment. When theCollege opted not to renew the appointments it merely invokedthe expiration of the period fixed in the appointments withoutgiving any other reason or granting the teachers concerned anopportunity to explaint heir side. The probationary employeeswere not even informed of their performance rating when theywere denied renewal of their appointment. The non-renewalwas timely made while individual petitioners were in theprocess of organizing themselves into a union. These acts of the College amounted to union busting.- The Office of the Solicitor General moves for the dismissal of the petition except as to ARROYO; that all petitioners exceptARROYO were legally dismissed. The reason why she failed tocomplete her master’s degree could not be solely attributed toher. She initially requested a leave of absence, but theCOLLEGE suggested that she teach on a part-time basisbecause it was in need of teachers at that time. Also, herdismissal was without due process.
1. WON ARROYO was legally dismissed2. WON the other petitioners were permanent employees
- it is undisputed that Arroyo had been teaching in the COLLEGEsince 1965 and had obtained a permanent status; she becamea part-time teacher, however, from June 1988 to March 1991.- She did not lose her permanent status when she requested toteach on a part-time basis. The reason for the request was thatshe wanted to pursue a master's degree. The COLLEGEapproved the request, and the study leave was extended foranother year. It would have been unjust and unreasonable toallow ARROYO to pursue her master's degree, from which theCOLLEGE would have also benefited in terms of her higherlearning and experience, and at the same time penalize herwith the loss of permanent status. It would as well be absurdand illogical to maintain that by teaching on a part-time basisafter obtaining the permission to take up a master's degree,ARROYO relinquished her permanent status.- When ARROYO subsequently requested that she continueteaching on a full-time basis, private respondents in its letter of 27 March 1991 refused, citing as reason her failure "to makeuse of the privilege granted [her] by the administrationregarding [her] study leave in the past four semesters." Thisletter served as notice of ARROYO's termination fromemployment. No further notice was served. It must beemphasized that the letter did not indicate that a master'sdegree was necessary for ARROYO to continue her service, asnow claimed by the COLLEGE. In fact, apart from its mereallegation, the COLLEGE failed to prove that a master's degreewas a pre-requisite for ARROYO's teaching position. ARROYO, apermanent teacher, could only be dismissed for just cause andonly after being afforded due process, in light of paragraph (b),Article 277 of the Labor Code.- Arroyo’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally flawed.It was effected without just cause and due process. Thus, hertermination was void. She is therefore entitled to reinstatementto her former position without loss of seniority rights and otherprivileges, full backwages inclusive of allowances, and otherbenefits computed from the date of her actual dismissal to thedate of reinstatement2. NO
- On the issue of whether the individual petitioners werepermanent employees, it is the Manual of Regulations forPrivate Schools, and not the Labor Code, which is applicable. This was settled in
University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC
, where weexplicitly ruled that for a private school teacher to acquirepermanent status in employment and, therefore, be entitled tosecurity of tenure, the following requisites must concur: (1) theteacher is a full-time teacher; (2) the teacher must haverendered three (3) consecutive years of service; and (3) suchservice must have been satisfactory.- Eleven of the individual petitioners were full-time teachersduring the school year 1990-1991, but only two, namely, Odisteand Buan had rendered three consecutive years of service. There is no showing, however, that the two were on a full-timebasis during those three years and that their services weresatisfactory. Evidently, not one of the said teachers can beconsidered to have acquired a permanent status.
the decision of the National Labor RelationsCommission in NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-4-3710-91-RI isAFFIRMED, subject to the modification that private respondentSan Ildefonso College is DIRECTED to (1) reinstate petitioner JULIETA ARROYO to her former position at the time of herdismissal, or to any equivalent position if reinstatement to suchposition is no longer feasible, without of loss of seniority rightsand benefits that may be due her; and (2) pay her back wagesfrom the date of her actual dismissal to the date of her actualreinstatement.
CIELO V NLRC
193 SCRA 410CRUZ; January 28, 1991
Petition for certiorari to review decision of NLRC setting asidedecision of Labor Arbiter for the reinstatement with backwagesof Zosimo Cielo.
Henry Lei Trucking hired Zosimo Cielo as a truck driver under 6-month Agreement with stipulations that the term is can beearlier terminated at the option of either party. The Agreementalso stipulated that there was no employer-employeerelationship between the parties and that the nature of therelationship is merely contractual. Lei asked Cielo to sign anaffidavit of having received full payment of wages, which Cielorefused to sign. A week before the Agreement was supposed toend, Lei notified Cielo of the termination of his services.