ST. MARY’S ACADEMY OF DIPOLOG CITY vs. TERESITA PALACIO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 164913
08 September 2010
Topic: Illegal Termination
DOCTRINE:
FACTS
In the 1990s, Petitioner hired Respondents Calibod, Laquio, Santander, Saile Padilla, Andalahao,
Decipulo and Montederamos, as classroom teachers, and respondent Palacio as guidance
counselor. According to petitioner, as non-board passers, respondents could not continue
practicing their teaching profession pursuant to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS) Memorandum No. 10, S. 1998 which requires incumbent teachers to register as
professional teachers pursuant to Section 27 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7836, otherwise known as
the Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994.
They filed a complaint contesting that their termination as highly irregular and premature. They
averred their right to security of tenure despite the requirements set by the PRC for they had
special permits to teach and the civil service eligibility required under the law. In addition to
this, the deadline for teachers to register under the Memorandum was set to 19 September 2000,
but the petitioner decided to terminate them as early as 31 March 2000. Further, as the aforesaid
law provides for exceptions to the taking of examination, they opined that their outright
dismissal was illegal because some of them possessed civil service eligibilities and special
permits to teach. Furthermore, petitioner’s retention and acceptance of other teachers who do not
also possess the required eligibility showed evident bad faith in terminating respondents.
LA Decision:
The LA adjudged the petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal. Thus, petitioner was ordered to
reinstate the respondents or to pay them separation pay at the rate of ½ month wage for every
year of service, plus limited back wages.
NLRC Decision:
The NLRC upheld the LA’s decision, stating that the grounds relied upon by the petitioner or
dismiss the respondents are not among those enumerated by the Labor Code and that the
respondents are regular employees, who cannot be removed without just cause.
CA Decision:
The CA upheld both the decisions of the LA and the NLRC. It further held that the Petitioner
should have adopted a contingency plan if in case the respondents still have not complied with
the aforementioned requirements when the deadline has arrived.
The CA also observed that the petitioner’s ulterior motive for the termination may have been the
result of a confrontation between the principal and the respondents. However, as regards to
Padilla, Palacio, Andalahao and Decipulo, the CA found them to be merely probationary;
therefore, there is no illegal dismissal to speak of.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether the dismissal of the respondents was premature because it was affected prior to
the deadline set by the PRC to acquire their license.
2. Whether the respondents are entitled to back wages from March to 19 September 2000,
because it is only on such date that they were already dismissible for cause.
RULING
1. Yes. The Supreme Court agrees with the decisions of the LA, the NLRC and the CA. It
is incumbent upon the Court to afford full protection to labor.
Again, by setting a deadline for registration as professional teachers, the law has allowed
incumbent teachers to practice their teaching profession until September 19, 2000,
despite being unregistered and unlicensed. The prejudice that respondents’ retention
would cause to the school’s operation is only trivial if not speculative as compared to the
consequences of respondents’ unemployment. Because of petitioner’s predicament, it
should have adopted measures to protect the interest of its teachers as regular employees.
As correctly observed by the CA, petitioner should have earlier drawn a contingency plan
in the event there is need to terminate respondents’ services in the middle of the school
year. Incidentally, petitioner did not dispute that it hired and retained other teachers who
do not likewise possess the qualification and eligibility and even allowed them to teach
during the school year 2000-2001. This indicates petitioner’s ulterior motive in hastily
dismissing respondents. Thus, In so far as Palacio, Calibod, Laquio, Santander and
Montedramos are concerned, being dismissed in March 2000 was premature.
However, Saile is not qualified to take the LET, therefore, no prematurity is to speak of
on her end. Petitioner’s intention and desire not to put the students’ education and school
operation in jeopardy is neither a decisive consideration for respondents’ termination
prior to the deadline set by law. The prejudice that respondents’ retention would cause to
the school’s operation is only trivial.
2. Yes. The respondents are entitled to limited backwages computed from 31 March 2000 to
September 2000 in favor of Palacio, Calibod, Laquio, Santander and Montederamos. The
contention deserves no merit. Petitioner cannot possibly presume that respondents could
not timely comply with the requirements of the law. At any rate, we note that petitioner
only assailed the amount of backwages for the first time in its motion for reconsideration
of the Decision of the CA. Thus, the Court cannot entertain the issue for being belatedly
raised. Hence, the award of limited backwages covering the period from March 31, 2000
to September 30, 2000 as ruled by the Labor Arbiter and affirmed by both the NLRC and
CA is in order.
