Understanding Regular Employment for Teachers in Private Schools: Security of Tenure Explained

n

TLDR: This case clarifies when a private school teacher gains regular employment status in the Philippines, emphasizing that continuous service beyond the probationary period, even with contract renewals, can lead to tenured status and protection against illegal dismissal. Schools cannot circumvent tenure rules by repeatedly hiring teachers on short-term contracts.

nn

G.R. No. 107234, August 24, 1998

nn

INTRODUCTION

n

Imagine a dedicated teacher, year after year, pouring their heart into shaping young minds, only to be suddenly told their contract won’t be renewed. For educators in private schools in the Philippines, the question of when temporary employment transitions into permanent, tenured positions is crucial for job security and fair treatment. This issue is at the heart of the Alfredo Bongar vs. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and AMA Computer College case. Bongar, an instructor at AMA Computer College, was let go after several contract renewals, leading to a legal battle over his employment status. The central question: did Bongar, despite his fixed-term contracts, become a regular employee entitled to security of tenure?

nn

LEGAL CONTEXT: PROBATIONARY AND REGULAR EMPLOYMENT FOR TEACHERS

n

Philippine labor law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, distinguishes between probationary and regular employment. For private school teachers, the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools sets a probationary period of three years of satisfactory service. This probationary period allows schools to assess a teacher’s performance before granting regular status. The key legal principle at play here is security of tenure, a right guaranteed to regular employees, protecting them from dismissal except for just or authorized causes and with due process. Article 294 (formerly 282) of the Labor Code outlines the grounds for termination of employment by an employer, emphasizing the need for just cause and procedural due process for regular employees.

n

The concept of probationary employment is further defined in Article 296 (formerly 281) of the Labor Code, stating that probationary employment shall not exceed six months from the date of hire, unless it is covered by an apprenticeship agreement stipulating a longer period. However, for teachers, the special law (Manual of Regulations for Private Schools) provides for a three-year probationary period. Crucially, regular employment is achieved when an employee continues to work after the probationary period, unless there is a valid reason for termination related to failure to meet reasonable standards made known to the employee at the time of engagement.

n

In previous cases, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled against employers using fixed-term contracts to circumvent security of tenure for employees who are essentially performing functions necessary and desirable to the employer’s business. The Court looks beyond the contractual language to the actual nature of the employment relationship. As the Supreme Court has stated in numerous cases, “the employment status of an employee is defined by law, and not by contract.”

nn

CASE BREAKDOWN: BONGAR VS. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE

n

Alfredo Bongar started teaching at AMA Computer College in 1986. His employment was consistently formalized through a series of contracts, renewed multiple times. Initially part-time, his status eventually shifted to full-time. After nearly four years of service, AMA decided not to renew his contract when it expired in June 1990. AMA argued that Bongar was merely a contractual employee whose contract had simply expired. They also alleged student complaints about his teaching performance as another reason for non-renewal, although this was presented as a secondary justification.

n

Bongar, believing he had become a regular employee after exceeding the three-year probationary period, filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter. He argued that his non-renewal was effectively a dismissal without just cause and due process. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in Bongar’s favor, finding illegal dismissal and awarding separation pay and backwages but denying reinstatement, citing strained relations. Both AMA and Bongar appealed to the NLRC. AMA contested the illegal dismissal finding, while Bongar questioned the denial of reinstatement and damages.

n

The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Dissatisfied, Bongar elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

n

The Supreme Court sided with Bongar, overturning the NLRC and Labor Arbiter’s decisions in part. The Court emphasized that Bongar had indeed attained regular employment status. The Court highlighted the flaw in AMA’s argument that Bongar remained a contractual employee indefinitely. Quoting the NLRC’s own observation, the Supreme Court agreed that:

n