The Supreme Court ruled in Saint Mary’s University vs. Court of Appeals that a part-time faculty member does not automatically attain permanent status, regardless of years of service. This decision clarifies the criteria for achieving regular employment in private educational institutions, emphasizing the importance of full-time status and compliance with the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. The ruling impacts employment contracts in similar institutions by setting clear guidelines on tenure eligibility.

Full-Time or Part-Time: Determining Employment Status and Rights at St. Mary’s University

This case revolves around Marcelo A. Donelo’s complaint for illegal dismissal against St. Mary’s University. Donelo argued that after teaching at the university since 1992, he had achieved permanent status as a faculty member. The university countered that Donelo was only a part-time instructor and therefore did not qualify for tenure. The central legal question is whether Donelo met the requirements for full-time employment, thereby entitling him to security of tenure under Philippine labor laws and the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the criteria for determining full-time status as outlined in Section 45 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. This section specifies that full-time academic personnel must meet several requirements, including possessing minimum academic qualifications, being paid monthly or hourly based on regular teaching loads, devoting their total working day to the school, having no other conflicting remunerative occupation, and not teaching full-time in another institution. The Court noted that regular full-time teaching load generally ranges from 15 to 24 units per semester, while part-time instructors typically carry 12 units or less.

The Court’s analysis hinged on whether Donelo met these criteria. The evidence showed that, with few exceptions, Donelo carried a teaching load of twelve units or less from 1992 to 1999. Additionally, there was evidence indicating that he was employed by the Provincial Government of Nueva Vizcaya from 1993 to 1996. These facts led the Court to conclude that Donelo did not meet the requirements for full-time status as defined by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. The Court emphasized that merely working for an extended period does not automatically confer permanent status if the employee does not fulfill the criteria for full-time employment.

The Court emphasized the distinction between full-time and part-time employment, stating that, according to prevailing regulations, only full-time teachers who have completed a probationary period can be considered for regular or permanent status. The probationary period, as outlined in Section 92 of the Manual, is not more than six consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level. For a private school teacher to acquire permanent status, three requisites must occur: the teacher must be full-time, must have rendered three consecutive years of service, and such service must have been satisfactory.

In its decision, the Supreme Court cited La Consolacion College v. National Labor Relations Commission, reinforcing the principle that compliance with these criteria is essential for attaining permanent status. The Court pointed out that since Donelo did not work on a full-time basis for at least three years, he could not have acquired a permanent status, regardless of his years of service to the university. “A part-time employee does not attain permanent status no matter how long he has served the school,” the Court stated, underscoring the importance of adhering to the regulatory requirements.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of illegal dismissal and the requirement of twin notice, which applies to the termination of regular or permanent employees. Since Donelo was deemed a part-time employee, the Court held that the university could terminate his services without being liable for illegal dismissal. The twin-notice requirement, which mandates that an employee be given two notices before termination, does not extend to part-time employees who do not have permanent status.

However, the Court clarified that part-time teachers are not without rights. They possess security of tenure in the sense that they cannot be lawfully terminated before the end of their agreed employment period without just cause. But once the contract period, semester, or term ends, the school is under no obligation to renew the contract of employment for the next period. This distinction ensures that part-time teachers are protected during their employment term while also allowing the institution flexibility in staffing decisions.

The Court, however, also addressed the absence of a specific agreement regarding the contract of employment. Taking judicial notice that contracts of employment for part-time teachers are generally on a per-semester or term basis, the Court presumed the contract to be for a term or semester. Thus, at the end of each term or semester, the school has no obligation to provide teaching load to each and every part-time teacher. Failing to give any teaching assignment to the respondent during a given term or semester, the Court declared, did not amount to an actionable violation of respondent’s rights; it did not amount to illegal dismissal of the part-time teacher.

In balancing the rights of employees and employers, the Supreme Court emphasized that the law should not be applied in a manner that oppresses or destroys the employer. Citing DI Security and General Services, Inc. v. NLRC, the Court reiterated that while the law protects the rights of employees, it does not authorize the destruction of the employer. It is a reminder that when the law favors labor, it should not be so tilted as to cause injustice to the employer.

The law, while protecting the rights of the employees, authorizes neither the oppression nor destruction of the employer.

The Supreme Court, in overturning the Court of Appeals’ decision, reinforced the criteria for attaining permanent status in private educational institutions. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to regulatory requirements and balancing the rights of employees and employers. This ruling has significant implications for employment contracts in private universities and colleges, ensuring clarity and fairness in employment practices.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Marcelo A. Donelo, a part-time instructor at St. Mary’s University, had attained permanent employment status, thereby entitling him to protection against illegal dismissal.
What are the requirements for attaining permanent status as a teacher in a private school?	According to the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, a teacher must be full-time, have rendered three consecutive years of satisfactory service, and have completed the probationary period to attain permanent status.
What constitutes a full-time teacher according to the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools?	A full-time teacher must possess the minimum academic qualifications, be paid monthly or hourly based on regular teaching loads, devote their total working day to the school, have no other conflicting remunerative occupation, and not be teaching full-time in another institution.
What is the twin-notice requirement, and does it apply to part-time employees?	The twin-notice requirement mandates that an employee be given two notices before termination. This requirement does not apply to part-time employees who do not have permanent status, as confirmed in this case.
Can a part-time teacher be terminated at any time?	Part-time teachers have security of tenure in the sense that they cannot be lawfully terminated before the end of their agreed employment period without just cause. However, the school is not obligated to renew their contract after each term or semester.
What was the teaching load of Marcelo A. Donelo?	Marcelo A. Donelo generally carried a teaching load of twelve units or less from 1992 to 1999, which contributed to the court’s finding that he was not a full-time employee.
What other employment did Marcelo A. Donelo have?	The records showed that Marcelo A. Donelo was also employed by the Provincial Government of Nueva Vizcaya from 1993 to 1996, which further supported the argument that he was not a full-time employee of the university.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court ruled that Marcelo A. Donelo did not attain permanent status because he did not meet the requirements for full-time employment. Therefore, his termination was not considered illegal dismissal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Saint Mary’s University vs. Court of Appeals provides clear guidelines on the employment status of part-time faculty members in private educational institutions. The ruling emphasizes the importance of adhering to regulatory requirements and balancing the rights of employees and employers, impacting future employment practices in similar settings.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Saint Mary’s University, G.R. NO. 157788, March 08, 2005