Raymond A. Son, et al. v. University of Santo Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 211273 | 2018
830 Phil. 243 (click for PDF copy, Source: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/)
G.R. No. 211273. April 18, 2018
RAYMOND A. SON, RAYMOND S. ANTIOLA, AND WILFREDO E. POLLARCO,
PETITIONERS,
V.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, FR. ROLANDO DELA ROSA, DR. CLARITA CARILLO, DR. CYNTHIA LOZA, FR. EDGARDO ALAURIN, AND THE COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS AND DESIGN FACULTY COUNCIL,
RESPONDENTS.
Ponente: DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Nature of petition:
This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to set aside the September 27, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128666 setting aside the August 10, 2011 Decision and October 30, 2012 Decision and January 22, 2013 Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in NLRC LAC Case No. 04-001131-11 and reinstating the March 26, 2012 Decision of the NLRC, as well as the CA's January 29, 2014 Resolution denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.
Dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The September 27, 2013 Decision and January 29, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128666 are AFFIRMED in toto.
Doctrines:
The requirement of a masteral degree for tertiary education teachers is not unreasonable. The operation of educational institutions involves public interest. The government has a right to ensure that only qualified persons, in possession of sufficient academic knowledge and teaching skills, are allowed to teach in such institutions. Government regulation in this field of human activity is desirable for protecting, not only the students, but the public as well from ill-prepared teachers, who are lacking in the required scientific or technical knowledge. They may be required to take an examination or to possess postgraduate degrees as prerequisite to employment.
Synopsis:
Here, the issue at hand was whether or not the petitioners were illegally dismissed from their positions as full-time professors at UST Colleges of Fine Arts and Design and Philosophy. The petitioners were hired as probationary employees and were required to obtain a graduate degree before the expiration of their probationary period to attain regular employment status. They enrolled in a master's program, but were unable to complete it within the prescribed period. Despite this, they continued to teach beyond the given period.
On March 3, 2010, CHED Chairman Emmanuel Angeles issued a Memorandum directing the strict implementation of the minimum qualification for faculty members of undergraduate programs, particularly the master's degree and licensure requirements. Acting on this Memorandum, UST informed the petitioners and other affected faculty members of their decision to cease re-appointment of those who failed to complete their master's degrees, but allowed a written appeal from those who were due for thesis defense/completion of their master's degrees. The petitioners did not make a written appeal, operating under the belief that they have been vested tenure under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for their continued employment despite failure to obtain the required master's degree.
The reason given for the non-renewal of the petitioners' appointments is their failure to obtain the required master's degree. They filed a labor case against the respondents for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal, and recovery of money claims, claiming that they have already acquired tenure by default pursuant to the tenure provision in the CBA, and that in spite of the CBA provision on tenure, respondents illegally terminated their employment. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and dismissed their illegal dismissal case.
The court ruled that the petitioners are not qualified to teach in the undergraduate programs of UST since they failed to satisfy the requirements of law by obtaining their respective master's degrees. The provision relative to the acquisition of tenure by default in the CBA is contrary to the 1992 Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools that was in effect at the time and is therefore null and void. Petitioners were given ample time and opportunity to satisfy the requirements, but they failed in the endeavor. As educators, they were presumed to know these mandated qualifications. Thus, the court held that the petitioners were not illegally dismissed from their positions as full-time professors at UST.