Navigating Probationary Employment: Why Passing the Teachers’ Board Exam Matters for Regularization

TLDR: This case clarifies that schools in the Philippines can require probationary teachers to pass the Professional Board Examination for Teachers (PBET) as a condition for regularization. Failing to meet this requirement, even after satisfactory performance during the probationary period, can be a valid reason for non-renewal of an employment contract. Motion for reconsideration at the NLRC is a crucial procedural step before elevating cases to higher courts.

G.R. No. 121962, April 30, 1999

INTRODUCTION

Imagine dedicating years to education, only to face job insecurity due to a licensing exam. For teachers in the Philippines, the Professional Board Examination for Teachers (PBET) can be a critical hurdle in achieving permanent employment. The Supreme Court case of Escorpizo vs. University of Baguio delves into this issue, specifically examining whether a university can require probationary teachers to pass the PBET as a condition for regularization. Esperanza Escorpizo, a high school teacher at the University of Baguio, faced contract non-renewal because she hadn’t passed the PBET during her probationary period, despite positive performance reviews. The central legal question was whether the University of Baguio acted legally in not regularizing Escorpizo’s employment due to her failure to pass the PBET, even though she had completed her probationary period.

LEGAL CONTEXT: PROBATIONARY EMPLOYMENT AND TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS

Philippine labor law recognizes probationary employment as a trial period allowing employers to assess an employee’s suitability for a permanent position. During this period, employers can observe an employee’s skills, competence, and work ethic. Conversely, the probationary employee has the opportunity to demonstrate their qualifications for regular employment. However, probationary employees also have rights. They are entitled to security of tenure, meaning they cannot be dismissed without just cause or due process during their probationary period. But this security differs from that of regular employees.

For teachers, Presidential Decree No. 1006, or the Decree Professionalizing Teaching, and its implementing rules, DECS Order No. 38, series of 1990, play a crucial role. DECS Order No. 38 explicitly states:

“no person shall be allowed to engage in teaching and/or act as a teacher unless he has registered as professional teacher with the National Board for Teachers. To be eligible as professional teacher, one must have passed the board examination for teachers or the examinations given by the Civil Service Commission or jointly by the Department of Education, Culture & Sports and the Civil Service Commission…effective January 1, 1992, no teacher in the private schools shall be allowed to teach unless he or she is a registered professional teacher.”

This order mandates that teachers in the Philippines, both in public and private schools, must be registered professional teachers, a qualification primarily attained by passing the PBET. Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) also govern employment terms. While CBAs are the law between contracting parties, they cannot override existing laws and regulations. As the Supreme Court reiterated, “while contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may see fit, such right to contract is subject to limitation that the agreement must not be contrary to law or public policy.”

CASE BREAKDOWN: ESCORPIZO’S PATH TO THE SUPREME COURT

Esperanza Escorpizo was hired by the University of Baguio as a probationary high school teacher in 1989. The university’s rules stipulated a two-year probationary period, during which teachers were evaluated for competency and fitness for regularization. A key requirement for achieving regular status was passing the PBET. After two years, Escorpizo was informed her contract would not be renewed because she had not passed the PBET.

Escorpizo appealed, requesting another chance and informing the university she had recently retaken the PBET. The university granted her request, allowing her to teach for another school year, but explicitly conditioned continued employment on passing the PBET. Unfortunately, she failed again. Despite a third attempt, Escorpizo still hadn’t passed the exam by the end of the 1991-1992 school year, and her name was not included in the list of teachers for the next year. However, in June 1992, she finally passed the PBET.

Despite passing the PBET, the University of Baguio did not renew Escorpizo’s contract, citing her failure to qualify as a regular teacher during her probationary period. Escorpizo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled that the university had a “permissible reason” for non-renewal but surprisingly ordered her reinstatement without backwages and with regular status. Dissatisfied with the lack of backwages, Escorpizo appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

The NLRC dismissed Escorpizo’s appeal, affirming the Labor Arbiter’s decision, although the basis for affirmation while denying backwages and seemingly agreeing with the “permissible reason” is unclear from the provided text excerpt. Instead of filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC, Escorpizo directly filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC.

The Supreme Court dismissed Escorpizo’s petition on procedural and substantive grounds. Procedurally, the Court emphasized the crucial step of filing a motion for reconsideration with the NLRC before resorting to a certiorari petition. The Court stated, “a motion for reconsideration is indispensable for it affords the NLRC an opportunity to rectify errors or mistakes it might have committed before resort to the courts can be had.” Moreover, the Court noted the defective certification against forum shopping, signed by the counsel instead of the petitioner.

Substantively, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Baguio’s right to require the PBET for regularization. The Court reasoned:

“Under the aforecited rule, the following conditions must concur in order that a probationary teacher may be extended a regular appointment; (1) the faculty member must satisfactorily complete the probationary period of four semesters or two years…and (2) the faculty member must pass the PBET or an equivalent civil service examination. Admittedly, while Escorpizo met the first requirement, she did not fulfill the second.”

The Court clarified that while Escorpizo may have performed satisfactorily, passing the PBET was a separate, essential requirement for regularization, legally grounded in DECS regulations. The CBA’s silence on the PBET requirement did not invalidate the university’s policy because statutory requirements are inherently part of any employment contract.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: CLARITY, COMPLIANCE, AND COMMUNICATION

Escorpizo vs. University of Baguio provides critical guidance for both educational institutions and teachers in the Philippines. For schools, it reinforces the right to establish and enforce reasonable standards for regularization, including the PBET requirement. However, it is crucial that these requirements are clearly communicated to probationary teachers from the outset. Including these requirements in employment contracts, faculty manuals, and through regular advisories ensures transparency and avoids potential disputes.

For teachers, especially those under probationary status, this case underscores the importance of understanding and meeting all regularization requirements set by their institutions, including licensure exams like the PBET. Satisfactory performance alone may not guarantee regularization if other explicit requirements are not met. Furthermore, teachers facing adverse decisions from the NLRC must remember the necessity of filing a motion for reconsideration before seeking judicial review. Failure to do so can result in dismissal based on procedural grounds alone, as seen in Escorpizo’s case.

Key Lessons:

• Clear Communication is Key: Schools must explicitly communicate all requirements for regularization to probationary teachers, including licensure exams like the PBET.
• Compliance with Requirements: Probationary teachers must proactively understand and fulfill all conditions for regularization beyond just satisfactory performance.
• Procedural Prudence: Always file a Motion for Reconsideration with the NLRC before filing a Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. This is a mandatory step to allow the NLRC to correct any potential errors.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q1: What is probationary employment in the Philippines?

A: Probationary employment is a trial period, typically up to six months (extendable in some sectors like education), allowing employers to assess if an employee is qualified for a regular position. The employer sets reasonable standards for regularization during this period.

Q2: Can employers set specific requirements for regularization beyond satisfactory performance?

A: Yes, employers can set reasonable standards, such as skills tests, training completion, or, in the case of teachers, passing the PBET, as conditions for regularization. These must be communicated clearly to the employee at the start of employment.

Q3: Is passing the PBET a valid requirement for regularizing teachers in private schools?

A: Yes. DECS Order No. 38 mandates that all teachers in the Philippines must be registered professional teachers, which generally requires passing the PBET. Schools can legally require passing the PBET as a condition for regularization.

Q4: What rights do probationary employees have?

A: Probationary employees have the right to security of tenure during their probationary period. They cannot be dismissed except for just cause and with due process. They are also entitled to minimum wage, benefits, and safe working conditions.

Q5: What should an employee do if they believe they were illegally dismissed during probation or denied regularization unfairly?

A: First, gather all relevant documents like your employment contract, performance evaluations, and any communication about regularization requirements. Then, consult with a labor lawyer to assess your case and understand your options. If you decide to pursue legal action after an NLRC decision, remember to file a Motion for Reconsideration with the NLRC as a mandatory first step.

ASG Law specializes in Labor and Employment Law, assisting both employers and employees in navigating complex labor issues. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.