52
Lolita R. Lacuesta
versus
Ateneo De Manila University, Dr. Leovino Ma. Garcia, And Dr. Marijo Ruiz
G.R. No. 152777, December 9, 2005
FACTS:
Respondent hired, on a contractual basis, petitioner Lolita R. Lacuesta as a part-time
lecturer in its English Department for the 2nd semester of school year 1988-1989. She was
re-rehired, still on a contractual basis, for the 1 st and 2nd semester of school year 1989-
1990.
On July 13, 1990, the petitioner was first appointed as full-time instructor on
probation, effective June 1, 1990- March 31, 1991. Thereafter, her contract as faculty on
probation was renewed effective April 1, 1991- March 31, 1993. During these 3 years she
was on probation status.
Respondent Dr. Leovino Ma. Garcia, Dean of Ateneo Graduate School and College of
Arts and Sciences, notified petitioner that her contract would no longer be renewed
because she did not notified petitioner that her contract would no longer be renewed
because she did not integrate well with the English Department. Petitioner appealed to the
President of the Ateneo. Then President Fr. Bernas explained to petitioner that she was
not being terminated, but her contract would simply expire. Fr. Bernas offered petitioner
the job as book editor in the University Press under terms comparable to that of a faculty
member. March 26, 1993, petitioner applied for clearance to collect her final salary as
instructor. Petitioner also signed a Quitclaim, Discharge and Release.
Petitioner worked as editor in the University Press from April 1, 19930 March 31,
1994 including an extension of two months after her contract expired. Upon expiry of her
contract, petitioner applied for clearance to collect her final salary as editor. Petitioner
decided not to have her contract renewed due to a severe back problem. She did not report
back to work, but she submitted her clearance. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal with prayer for reinstatement, back wages, and moral exemplary damages.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioner became a regular employee of Ateneo.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
The Manual of Regulations for Private School and not the Labor Code, determines
whether or not a faculty member in an education institution has attained regular or
permanent status. Under Policy Instructions No. 11 issued by DOLE “ probationary
employment of professors, instructors and teachers shall be subject to the standards
established by the Department of Education and Culture”. Said standards are embodied in
paragraph 75 (now Section 93) of the Manual of Regulations for Private School.
Section 93 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides that full-
time teachers who have satisfactorily completed their probationary period shall be
considered regular or permanent. Moreover, for those teaching in the tertiary level, the
probationary period shall not be more than 6 consecutive regular semester of satisfaction
service. The requisites to acquire permanent employment, or security of tenure, are (1) the
53
teacher is a full-time teacher; (2) the teacher must have rendered three conservative years
of service; and (3) such service must have been satisfactory. A part time teacher cannot
acquire permanent status. Only when one has served as a full-time teacher can he acquire
permanent or regular status. The petitioner was a part-time teacher can he acquire
permanent or regular status. The petitioner was a part-time lecturer before she was
appointed as a full-time instructor on probation. As a part-time lecturer, her employment
as such had ended when her contract expired. Thus, the three semester she served to
qualify her for permanent status. Completing the probation period does not automatically
qualify her to become permanent employee of the university. Petitioner could only
qualify to become a permanent employee upon fulfilling the reasonable standards for
permanent employment as faculty member. Consistent with academic freedom and
constitutional autonomy, an institution of higher learning has the prerogative to provide
standards for its teacher and determine whether these standards have been met. At the end
of the probation period, the decision to re-hire an employee on probation, belongs to the
university as the employer alone.
54
