■ While DECS regulations prescribe a maximum of three years probation period for teachers, the termination of the three-year period does not result in the automatic permanent status for the teacher. It must be conditioned on a showing that the teacher’s services during the probationary period was satisfactory in accordance with the employer's standards. The prerogative of the school to provide standards for its teachers and to determine whether or not these standards have been met is in accordance with academic freedom and constitutional autonomy which give educational institutions the right to choose who should teach.
■ There is no question that private respondents were probationary teachers. Thus, they are covered by the policy instructions issued by the Department of Labor and Employment that the probationary employment of professional instructors and teachers shall be subject to the standards established by the Department of Education and Culture. Said standards are embodied in paragraph 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, as follows:
75. Full time teachers who have rendered three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory services shall be considered permanent.
In University of Sto. Tomas vs. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court in interpreting the foregoing rule, held that the legal requisites for a teacher to acquire permanent employment and security of tenure are as follows:
(1) The teacher is a full time teacher;
(2) The teacher must have rendered three (3) consecutive years of service; and
(3) Such service must have been satisfactory.
There is no question that private respondents have been employed for three (3) consecutive years as teachers at petitioners' college and on a full time basis. However, they do not automatically become permanent unless it is shown that their services during the probationary period were satisfactory.
The contention of respondents that upon termination of the three-year probationary period the teacher automatically becomes permanent is not quite correct. It must be conditioned on the compliance with the third requisite that the services of said teacher during the probationary period was satisfactory.
The employer is the one who is to set the standards and determine whether or not the services of an employee are satisfactory. It is the prerogative of an employer to determine whether or not the said standards have been complied with. In fact, it is the right of the employer to shorten the probationary period if he is impressed with the services of the employees.
This prerogative of a school to provide standards for its teachers and to determine whether or not these standards have been met is in accordance with academic freedom and constitutional autonomy which give educational institution the right to choose who should teach.
At the start of their employment, private respondents were duly furnished the Faculty Manual expressly stating among others, the duties of teachers and the grounds for termination of employment or non-appointment to permanent status of a probationary employee.
In the case of respondent Villegas, it appears that there were complaints of students during his last year of service and that these complaints were duly investigated by the Acting Dean of the Nautical Department who came up with the report of the acts complained of.
Thus, his performance was considered unsatisfactory and was not renewed by petitioner college after the third year. That he was made to teach in the summer of 1984 appears to be prompted by the fact that the summer sessions were still part of the third probationary period which started in July of the first semester of school year 1981-82.
Similarly, respondent Pagapong was found to be inefficient due to her absences.
The Court thus finds and so holds that private respondents were not illegally dismissed by petitioner. (Cagayan Capitol College vs. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 90010-11, September 14, 1990)
No comments:
Post a Comment