CASE: Teachers’ Termination of Employment 1

Directions: Analyze the following school–teacher Case and provide solutions to the
problem(s) / questions contained thereafter.

St. Paul Academy (assumed identity) is an educational institution located in CALABARZON,

owned and managed by the Diocese of the Province with Fr. Reymar Dela Cruz as Director and
Mrs. Jeannette Palma as the Principal. Rosanna Rosal, Fernando Santos and Roberto Torres
(assumed names to hide their real identities) were regular teachers therein. Rosal began teaching
at the School in 2005 while Santos and Torres joined its school faculty only in 2007.
Unfortunately, their service with the school was unexpectedly interrupted when each of them
was served a notice of termination of employment on September 15, 2016.

The termination allegedly stemmed from an incident that occurred on August 10, 2016. On said
date, a public rally was held at the town plaza of the town not far from the school location. The
rally was organized by parents and students of the school and was attended by faculty members
who were all invited. The rally aimed at calling the attention of the school administration to
certain grievances relative to substandard school facilities, the administration’s corrupt practices,
and the economic demands of teachers and other employees of the Institution.

The School Principal Palma sent each of the complainants identical memoranda dated August 15,
2016, requiring them to explain in writing their acts of participating in the aforementioned rally
of parents and students outside the school premises; preventing students from attending classes;
and denouncing the school authority in their speeches. Responding to the individual
memorandum sent to them, Complainants Rosal, Santos, and Torres, in separate letters dated
August 18, 2016, denied all the accusations attributed to them, and explained that they were
invited by the core group of parents and students and merely joined them to show their support
but they did not denounce the school authority.

To determine the culpability of the accused, School Principal Palma created an investigation
committee composed of Atty. Ronaldo Grabador, legal counsel of the school, Assistant Principal
Herminia Pulgado, and Mrs. Daisy Martines, the School Registrar. The Investigation Committee
found that complainants had actively participated in the said rally, and consequently
recommended their termination from service. Thus, on September 15, 2016, each of the
respondents was sent identical letters informing them of their termination from the service for
serious disrespect to their superior, Fr. Dela Cruz, and for serious misconduct that resulted in the
disruption of classes.

Complainants immediately filed on September 21, 2016 a joint complaint with the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for
illegal dismissal against the Respondent School and its Officers. On November 20, 2016,
Arbiter Joseph Villegas rendered a decision, declaring their dismissal illegal.

The Arbiter held that there was no just cause for the dismissal of the complainants: that their
dismissal is not serious misconduct or willful disobedience for dereliction of duty predicated on

Case adopted and modified for academic discussion in HRM Class by Prof. M. T. Enriquez Jr 1
their absence for only one day of classes for attending the public rally; that their dismissal for
only absence appears to be too harsh a penalty. He further noted that the complainants were
charged for an offense for the first time in their long years of service to the Academy, among
other issues.

Furthermore, the Arbiter found that during the early part of 2010, the high school faculty of the
Academy formed a labor union. Among the organizers of the union were complainants Rosal,
Santos, and Torres, who were subsequently elected as President, Board of Director, and PRO,
respectively, of the school labor union. Thereafter, certain grievances were raised by the faculty
in dialogue, called for the purpose by the school administration headed by School Director Fr.
Dela Cruz. The dialogue proved futile, and the grievances had not been acted upon as of August
10, 2016, when the public rally was held.

Therefore, the Arbiter declared that complainant-teachers Rosal, Santos, and Torres were
illegally terminated and ordered their reinstatement to their respective positions without loss of
seniority and with full back wages.

Respondent School appealed the Arbiter’s decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals gave other reasons for not agreeing with the Arbiter’s decision in declaring the
complainants’ dismissal illegal. The CA held that the complainants were guilty of dereliction of
duty for failing to exercise the very task that they are duty-bound to perform as teachers of the
respondent school, that is, to conduct classes on August 10, 2016. In addition, the CA opined
that their attendance in the public rally was willful conduct of disobeying the reasonable order of
the school principal to conduct classes on a school day and thus, falls within the ambit of Article
297 (282) of the Labor Code. Further, the CA stated that the airing of grievances could have
been done in a more acceptable way, through the Parents-Teachers Association or a gathering of
teachers, parents and students.

The Decision of the Court of Appeals on the School Appeal is still pending.

As MBA students of Human Resource Management, you are hereby required to resolve the labor
dispute. Specifically:

1) What is/are the Issue (s) to be resolved?

2) Discuss fully your Position on the Case (s), supporting it with valid arguments and
pertinent laws.

3) Finally, render a valid acceptable Decision / Verdict on the Issue (s) raised.

NOTE: Your Decision on the teachers’ case will form part of your Final Grade.

Case adopted and modified for academic discussion in HRM Class by Prof. M. T. Enriquez Jr 2
Case adopted and modified for academic discussion in HRM Class by Prof. M. T. Enriquez Jr 3