Our educators undeniably play a vital role in nation-building and development. As driving forces of our society, teachers are afforded paramount consideration under Section 5(4), Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates the State “to enhance the right of teachers to professional advancement.”[1] The constitutional provision being all-encompassing, it includes non-teaching academic and non-academic personnel who shall likewise enjoy the protection of the State.[2]
In the Philippines, private educational institutions for basic education are governed by the 2010 Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools in Basic Education (“2010 Manual”). Under the 2010 Manual’s fundamental state policies on education, the State recognizes the complementary roles of public and private institutions in the educational system, and shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions.[3]
The 2010 Manual likewise acknowledges our educators as part of our labor force by providing the guarantee that every private school shall promote the improvement of the economic, social, and professional status of all its personnel.[4] Pertinently, Section 64 of the 2010 Manual reads:
Section 64. Security of Employment. Stability and Security of employment shall be assured all private personnel as provided for under this Manual and other applicable laws. School personnel shall be provided with a contract or appointment in accordance with their status in the school.[5]
Educators as employees
In the recent case of Arlene Palgan vs. Holy Name University, our Supreme Court revisited the labor rights of teachers in private educational institutions, as well as the regulations governing their employment.
For school year (S.Y.) 1992-1993, petitioner Arlene Palgan was employed as a Casual or Assistant Clinical Instructor in the Holy Name University (HNU) College of Nursing while waiting for the results of her Nursing Board Examination. In 1994, she was he was hired as a full-time Clinical Instructor until S.Y. 1998-1999 and was assigned at the Medical Ward. During the second semester of S.Y. 1998-1999, she was transferred to the Guidance Center as a Nursing Guidance Instructor handling guidance, education, and graduate school courses. In 2004, she rejoined HNU after her three-year term as Municipal Councilor of Carmen, Bohol. Upon her return to HNU, she was given a full-time load for S.Y. 2004-2005.[6]
For S.Y. 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, Arlene signed contracts for term/semestral employment. However, in February 2007, HNU informed Arlene that her contract of employment, which would have expired on March 31, 2007, will no longer be renewed.[7]
Being of the belief that she was a regular employee for having taught for more than six (6) regular semesters, Arlene contested her dismissal. HNU, on the other hand, averred that Arlene remained a probationary employee for S.Y. 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, and that the completion of her probationary period did not automatically make her a permanent employee since she failed to comply with all the conditions of her probationary employment.[8]
Arlene then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against HNU before the Labor Arbiter (LA), who dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The LA ratiocinated that since Arlene was a probationary employee, she has no vested right yet to a permanent appointment until after the completion of the pre-requisite three-year period for the acquisition of a permanent status.[9] The NLRC initially affirmed the adverse decision, but subsequently reversed itself on reconsideration and found Arlene to have been illegally dismissed.
However, Arlene’s relief at the NLRC was short-lived as the Court of Appeals found in favor of HNU. Unfortunately, she suffered the same fate when the case was finally decided by the Supreme Court, where it was found that Arlene failed to meet the criteria required to attain a permanent status.
Employment status of private school teachers
The Court elucidated that it is the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, and not the Labor Code that determines whether or not a faculty member in an educational institution has attained regular or permanent status.[10]
The Court then reiterated the requisites before a private school teacher acquires permanent status, namely: 1) The teacher serves full-time; 2) he/she must have rendered three consecutive years of service; and 3) such service must have been satisfactory.[11] Said requisites are derived from Sections 92 and 93 of the 1992 Manual, viz:
Section 92. Probationary Period. Subject in all instances to compliance with Department and school requirements, the probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more than three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory service for those in the elementary and secondary levels, six (6) consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level, and nine (9) consecutive trimesters of satisfactory service for those in the tertiary level where collegiate courses are offered on the trimester basis.
Section 93. Regular or Permanent Status. Those who have served the probationary period shall be made regular or permanent. Full-time teachers who have satisfactorily completed their probationary period shall be considered regular or permanent.[12]
Applying the aforementioned requisites, the Court found that while Arlene rendered three (3) consecutive years of satisfactory service, she was, however, not a full-time teacher at the College of Nursing of HNU. In this regard, the Court reiterated the long-standing rule that only a full-time teaching personnel can acquire regular or permanent status.[13]
Correspondingly, the Court noted that Arlene never qualified to be a full-time faculty member due to the apparent lack of the required clinical experience under the 1992 Manual, which, read in conjunction with the Commission of Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum Order No. 30, Series of 2001 (CMO 30-01), requires at least three (3) years of clinical practice in the field of specialization.[14] Further, under the 1991 Nursing Act, a member of the faculty in a college of nursing teaching professional courses must have at least one (1) year of clinical practice in a field of specialization.[15]
Taking together the foregoing rules, the Court concluded that the three-year or one-year clinical practice experience is a minimum academic requirement to qualify as a faculty member in a college of nursing, and is therefore, required for one to be considered as a full-time faculty of such.[16]
At this juncture, the Court also took the opportunity to interpret the phrase “clinical practice” under the 1991 Nursing Act. While the Court conceded that Arlene was performing clinical duties concurrently with her teaching duties, especially since she was assigned at the medical ward, she never alleged that she was performing clinical duties such as treating actual patients or assisting doctors in such treatment. Nor did she present any substantial evidence to prove the same. Consequently, her work experience could not be considered as “clinical practice.”[17]
In fine, the Court concluded that being unqualified as a nursing faculty from the start, Arlene could not be considered a full-time faculty and thus, could not, even after rendering satisfactory service for three (3) years, be entitled to permanency.[18] The Court went further to rule that since Arlene and HNU were aware of the fact that the former cannot attain permanency due to her lack of the minimum academic requirements, Arlene’s employment contract was only one for a fixed-term, which merely expired in 2007. The Court then reiterated the requisites for a valid fixed-term employment under the Labor Code:
1. The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or
2. It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.[19]
Pursuant to the aforementioned requisites, the Court found that Arlene consented to the fixed-term employment in contrast to her self-serving and unsubstantiated allegations of her regular employment. On the other hand, being an honor student with stellar qualifications, as well as an elected public official, Arlene is not a mere run-of-the-mill employee. Rather, she has the capability to be on equal footing in dealing with her employer when it comes to her employment terms. Arlene, therefore, was not illegally dismissed by HNU.
We write this article to provide an overview about the regularization of teachers in private schools and the laws governing their employment. Should you need legal assistance on teachers’ employment rights, please send an email to ryan@romanolaw.ph.
[1] Section 5(4), Article XIV, 1987 Constitution. [2] Id. [3] Section 4(7), 2010 Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools in Basic Education, 24 June 2010. [4]Id, Section 62(2). [5] Id, Section 64. [6] Arlene Palgan vs. Holy Name University, G.R. No. 219916, February 10, 2021 [7] Id. [8] Id. [9] Id. [10] Id. [11] Id, citing Lacuesta vs ADMU, G.R. No. 152777, 9 December 2005 [12] 1992 Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, 10 August 1992 [13] Arlene Palgan vs. NHU, citing Herrera-Manaois vs. St. Scholastica’s College, G.R. No. 188914, 11 December 2013 [14] CHED Memorandum Order No. 30 Series of 2001 (CMO 30-01) [15] Republic Act No. 9173 or the 1991 Nursing Act, 21 October 2002 [16]Arlene Palgan vs. NHU, supra [17]Id. [18]Id. [19]Arlene Palgan vs. HNU, citing Brent School vs. Zamora, G.R. No. L-48494, 5 February 1990
留言