Tag: Faculty Qualifications

Security of Tenure vs. Qualification Standards: Resolving Employment Disputes in Philippine Higher Education

In a ruling that balances the rights of educators with the standards of quality education, the Supreme Court affirmed that educational institutions are not obligated to grant regular employment status to faculty members who do not meet the minimum academic qualifications set by law, specifically the Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education (MORPHE). Even if a school previously treated unqualified faculty as regular employees, it is not legally bound to continue this practice. This decision underscores that compliance with educational standards takes precedence over previously granted, but legally infirm, employment statuses, ensuring that higher education institutions maintain quality by adhering to established qualification requirements.

When Prior Practice Collides with Current Regulations: Examining Faculty Status at STI Education

The case of Luningning Z. Brazil, Salvacion L. Garcera, and Rita S. De Mesa v. STI Education Ser. Group, Inc. (G.R. No. 233314, November 21, 2018) revolves around the employment status of faculty members at STI. The petitioners, Brazil, Garcera, and De Mesa, were long-time faculty members at STI-Legazpi. They filed a complaint for illegal constructive dismissal after STI offered them contracts that altered their employment status, which they believed was already regular. The core legal issue is whether STI could legally offer these altered contracts based on the faculty members’ failure to meet the academic qualifications mandated by the 2008 MORPHE, despite having previously treated them as regular employees.

The petitioners argued that they had been constructively dismissed when STI offered them new contracts reflecting a change in their employment status. Brazil and De Mesa were offered part-time positions, while Garcera was offered a probationary role, despite their understanding that they were already regular employees. They based their claim on the fact that they had been teaching at STI for several years, receiving benefits akin to those of regular employees, and in some instances, being explicitly recognized as such by the institution. However, STI contended that the petitioners did not possess the master’s degrees required for regular faculty status under the 2008 MORPHE. Because of this, the school argued it was compelled to offer them contracts that aligned with their qualifications, or lack thereof, under the existing regulations. Their refusal to sign these contracts, according to STI, led to a separation of service, not an illegal dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them regular employees who had been illegally dismissed. The LA reasoned that the 2008 MORPHE should not retroactively strip faculty members of a regular status already attained. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, ultimately siding with STI. The NLRC emphasized that Brazil and De Mesa did not meet the master’s degree requirement under MORPHE, which disqualified them from attaining regular status. Although Garcera had obtained her master’s degree, it was only shortly before the new contracts were offered, thus justifying her probationary status. The NLRC cited the case of University of the East, et al. v. Pepanio, et al., stating that regularization against public policy cannot be upheld.

The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC’s decision, finding no grave abuse of discretion. The CA agreed that the petitioners’ refusal to sign the contracts, which were compliant with the 2008 MORPHE, resulted in their separation from service. The Supreme Court, in upholding the CA’s ruling, underscored that equity cannot override the explicit provisions of the law. The court emphasized that the nature of employment is determined by law, not by private contracts or agreements that contravene legal requirements. This is consistent with the principle articulated in Villa v. NLRC, which states that “the nature of employment is determined by the factors set by law, regardless of any contract expressing otherwise.” Thus, despite any prior arrangements or understandings, the petitioners’ employment status could not be regularized if they did not meet the standards set by the 2008 MORPHE.

The Supreme Court cited Raymond A. Son, et al. v. University of Santo Tomas (UST), et al. (G.R. No. 211273, April 18, 2018), a similar case where faculty members without the required master’s degrees claimed regular status based on a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). In Son, the Court ruled that the CBA provision was null and void for violating the 1992 MORPS. The Court further held that UST’s continued hiring of unqualified teachers did not create a right to regularization for those teachers. Applying the principle of pari delicto, the Supreme Court held that neither party could claim relief because both were in violation of the law. Extending this reasoning, the Supreme Court in Brazil likewise rejected the argument that STI was estopped from enforcing MORPHE because it had previously granted the teachers regular status. According to the Court, estoppel cannot validate an act that violates the law or public policy.

In analyzing the nature of employment for faculty members, the Court clarified the distinction between full-time/part-time status and permanent/probationary/fixed-term status. The former categorization depends on academic qualifications and teaching load, while the latter relates to security of tenure. The court referenced Section 45 of the 1992 MORPS which states that “Full-time academic personnel are those meeting all the following requirements: Who possess at least the minimum academic qualifications prescribed by the Department under this Manual for all academic personnel.” The Court affirmed that only full-time faculty members, those meeting the minimum qualifications, can achieve permanent status after a probationary period. Part-time faculty members, lacking the necessary qualifications, are considered fixed-term employees without security of tenure. The court held that the petitioners were part-time faculty with a fixed-term status because they were hired on a semestral basis and did not possess the required master’s degrees.

This ruling carries significant implications for faculty members in higher education institutions. It reinforces the importance of meeting the minimum academic qualifications prescribed by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). Faculty members who do not possess the required qualifications cannot claim security of tenure, regardless of prior arrangements or practices. This decision also protects the integrity of educational standards by ensuring that institutions prioritize qualified educators, aligning with the State’s policy to promote quality education. Ultimately, this ruling confirms that laws and regulations governing educational standards supersede internal policies or practices that may have previously conferred benefits inconsistent with those standards.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether STI could legally alter the employment status of faculty members who did not meet the academic qualifications mandated by the 2008 MORPHE, even if the school had previously treated them as regular employees.
What is the 2008 MORPHE?	The 2008 Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education (MORPHE) is a set of guidelines implemented by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) that prescribes the standards and regulations for private higher education institutions in the Philippines. It includes provisions on faculty qualifications, teaching loads, and employment status.
What are the minimum qualifications for full-time faculty under the 2008 MORPHE?	Under Section 35 of the 2008 MORPHE, the minimum qualification for undergraduate programs is a master’s degree in the field in which the faculty member primarily teaches. In specific fields where there is a scarcity of master’s degree holders, a holder of a professional license requiring at least a bachelor’s degree may be qualified to teach.
Can a faculty member who does not meet the minimum qualifications attain regular or permanent status?	No. Section 117 of the 2008 MORPHE states that academic teaching personnel who do not possess the minimum academic qualifications prescribed in the manual are considered part-time employees and cannot avail themselves of the status and privileges of probationary employment, and therefore, cannot acquire regular or permanent status.
What is the difference between full-time and part-time faculty?	Full-time faculty members meet all the minimum academic qualifications prescribed under the MORPHE, are paid monthly or hourly based on regular teaching loads, devote at least eight hours of work a day to the school, and do not have other remunerative occupations requiring regular hours of work. All other faculty members are considered part-time.
What is a fixed-term employment contract for teachers?	A fixed-term employment contract is an agreement where employment exists only for a specified duration, ending automatically when the term expires. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of fixed-term contracts for teachers, provided the agreement is made knowingly and voluntarily, without force or duress.
Does non-renewal of a fixed-term employment contract equate to illegal dismissal?	No. Under a fixed-term employment, the employer-employee relationship is severed upon the expiration of the term without the necessity of any notice to the employee. Non-renewal of the contract does not constitute dismissal, and there is no security of tenure in a fixed-term employment.
What happens if an educational institution previously granted regular status to unqualified faculty?	The Supreme Court held that such a prior practice does not prevent the institution from complying with current laws and regulations, such as the MORPHE. Estoppel cannot be invoked to validate an act that violates the law or public policy, and the institution is not legally bound to continue the irregular practice.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Brazil v. STI provides clarity on the employment rights and qualifications of faculty members in higher education. By prioritizing compliance with educational standards and regulations, the ruling strengthens the integrity of the educational system and ensures that institutions adhere to prescribed qualifications. This ultimately benefits students and the public by ensuring quality education from qualified teaching personnel.

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: Brazil vs. STI, G.R. No. 233314, November 21, 2018

October 21, 2019

Master’s Degree Requirement for College Faculty: Upholding Educational Standards Over Collective Bargaining Agreements

The Supreme Court affirmed that a Master’s degree is a mandatory requirement for college faculty members, reinforcing the government’s authority to ensure quality education. The Court held that a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) cannot override this requirement, as the pursuit of high educational standards is of public interest. This ruling emphasizes that educational institutions must prioritize qualified educators, and CBAs must align with existing laws and regulations to maintain the integrity of higher education.

Whose Rules Apply? Tenure, CBAs, and the Pursuit of Qualified Professors

This case revolves around the employment of Raymond A. Son, Raymond S. Antiola, and Wilfredo E. Pollarco, who were full-time professors at the University of Santo Tomas (UST). UST, like other higher education institutions, operates under the regulatory authority of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). The central conflict emerges from the professors’ lack of the Master’s degree typically required for their positions. Although the university hired them, they were unable to obtain the said degree within the prescribed period. The professors argued that they had acquired tenure by default under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the UST Faculty Union. This CBA provision stated that faculty members serving six consecutive semesters on a full-time basis, despite lacking a master’s degree, could be considered tenured. The critical legal question is whether a CBA can supersede the CHED’s regulations regarding faculty qualifications, particularly the requirement for a Master’s degree.

The situation was further complicated by CHED Memorandum Order No. 40-08, which mandated the strict implementation of minimum qualifications for faculty members, including the Master’s degree requirement. UST, acting on this memorandum, decided not to renew the appointments of faculty members who had not completed their Master’s degrees. The professors argued that this decision violated their tenurial rights under the CBA. Respondents countered that the CHED Memorandum Order took precedence over the CBA. The Labor Arbiter initially ruled in favor of the professors, upholding the CBA provision. However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, aligning with the CHED Memorandum Order, until the Court of Appeals sided with UST, emphasizing the importance of academic freedom and regulatory compliance in education.

The Supreme Court centered its analysis on the interplay between contractual agreements and regulatory mandates. The Court emphasized that the requirement of a Master’s degree for undergraduate program professors has been in place since 1992 through DECS Order 92. This order, issued under the Education Act of 1982, carries the force and effect of law. The court quoted University of the East v. Pepanio, stating that the masteral degree requirement for tertiary education teachers is reasonable and aligns with public interest. The CBA provision regarding tenure by default was deemed void because it conflicted with the then-existing 1992 Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. The Court highlighted that a void contract produces no civil effect, citing Article 1409 of the Civil Code, which states that contracts with objects contrary to law are void from the beginning.

Art. 1409. The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning:

(1) Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy;

The Supreme Court then addressed the argument that CHED Memorandum Order No. 40-08 was being applied retroactively. The Court clarified that the memorandum merely reiterated the existing requirement of a masteral degree. Petitioners were found unqualified to teach in UST’s undergraduate programs due to their failure to obtain the said master’s degrees despite having ample time to do so. The Court stated that both parties were, in a way, violating the law. UST was maintaining professors without the mandated masteral degrees, while the professors agreed to be employed despite knowing their lack of qualifications. The Court invoked the doctrine of pari delicto, stating that neither party could seek legal aid from the Court under these circumstances.

Latin for ‘in equal fault,’ in pari delicto connotes that two or more people are at fault or are guilty of a crime. Neither courts of law nor equity will interpose to grant relief to the parties, when an illegal agreement has been made, and both parties stand in pari delicto. Under the pari delicto doctrine, the parties to a controversy are equally culpable or guilty, they shall have no action against each other, and it shall leave the parties where it finds them. This doctrine finds expression in the maxims “ex dolo malo nonoritur actio” and “in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis.”

The Court further emphasized that the minimum requirement of a Master’s degree had been cemented in DECS Order 92, Series of 1992. It was clarified that any inaction from the government to strictly enforce this requirement did not erase the violations committed by educational institutions or the parties involved. The Court dismissed the argument that UST was in estoppel or had waived the application of CHED Memorandum Order No. 40-08 by agreeing to the tenure by default provision in the CBA. Such a waiver, the Court reasoned, would be contrary to law and would prejudice the rights of students and the public, who have a right to expect quality education from qualified personnel. The Supreme Court emphasized its previous rulings in cases like University of the East v. Pepanio and Herrera-Manaois v. St. Scholastica’s College, which affirmed the mandatory nature of these qualifications.

Building on this principle, the Court explicitly stated that UST’s decision not to renew the professors’ appointments was a valid exercise of academic freedom and management prerogative. Academic freedom, as enshrined in the Constitution, includes the right of educational institutions to determine who may teach and to set standards for their faculty. This extends to the school’s prerogative to set high standards of efficiency for its teachers to fulfill the constitutional mandate of quality education. The Court recognized that protecting the rights of laborers should not lead to the oppression or self-destruction of the employer, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that respects both employee rights and institutional autonomy.

The practical implications of this ruling are significant for both educational institutions and faculty members. Educational institutions must ensure that their faculty meet the minimum qualifications set by regulatory bodies like CHED. Institutions can’t circumvent these requirements through Collective Bargaining Agreements or other contractual arrangements. Faculty members need to be aware of the qualifications required for their positions and take the necessary steps to meet them. The decision underscores the importance of aligning CBAs with existing laws and regulations, preventing conflicts that could compromise educational standards. Ultimately, this ruling reinforces the state’s authority to regulate and supervise educational institutions to protect the public interest and ensure quality education.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) could supersede the Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) regulations regarding the minimum qualifications for college faculty, specifically the requirement for a Master’s degree.
What did the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) state?	The UST-UST Faculty Union CBA had a provision that allowed faculty members who served six consecutive semesters on a full-time basis to acquire tenure, even if they did not possess the required Master’s degree.
What did CHED Memorandum Order No. 40-08 mandate?	CHED Memorandum Order No. 40-08 directed the strict implementation of minimum qualifications for faculty members in undergraduate programs, including the requirement of possessing a Master’s degree.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court ruled that the CHED Memorandum Order took precedence over the CBA, meaning that the Master’s degree requirement was mandatory and could not be overridden by a contractual agreement.
*What is the doctrine of pari delicto?*	The doctrine of pari delicto states that when two parties are equally at fault in an illegal agreement, neither party can seek legal relief from the courts; the courts will leave them as they are. In this case, both the university and the professors were considered at fault – the university for hiring unqualified personnel and the professors for accepting employment without meeting the qualifications.
What is academic freedom, and how does it apply to this case?	Academic freedom is the right of educational institutions to determine for themselves who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. In this case, the Court recognized that UST’s decision not to renew the professors’ appointments was a valid exercise of academic freedom.
What is the significance of DECS Order 92, Series of 1992?	DECS Order 92, Series of 1992, also known as the Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, established the minimum qualifications for faculty members, including the requirement of a Master’s degree. This order has the force and effect of law.
Can faculty members waive the Master’s degree requirement through a CBA?	No, the Supreme Court ruled that the Master’s degree requirement cannot be waived through a CBA, as such a waiver would be contrary to law and would prejudice the rights of students and the public to receive quality education from qualified personnel.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to regulatory standards in the field of education. While collective bargaining agreements provide a framework for labor relations, they cannot undermine the state’s power to ensure quality education through mandated qualifications. Institutions and educators alike must be vigilant in upholding these standards to maintain the integrity of the educational system.

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

April 18, 2018