SATISFACTORY SERVICE REQUIREMENT FOR TEACHERS TO BECOME REGULAR CONNOTES SETTING OF REASONABLE STANDARDS

Petitioners complainants were hired by San Juan de Dios Educational Foundation, respondent college, for full-time teaching positions. The appointment of petitioner Fallarme was effective at the start of the semester of School Year (SY) 2003-2004 as signified by a memorandum issued by the school informing her that she had been hired.

The memorandum did not specify whether she was being employed on a regular or a probationary status. Aside from being appointed to a faculty position, she was also appointed to perform administrative work for the school as personnel officer and to serve as head of the Human Development Counseling Services. Despite having served as a faculty member since SY 2003-2004, Fallarme was asked only on 1 March 2006 to sign and submit to respondent a written contract on the nature of the former’s employment and corresponding obligations. The contract was denominated as “Appointment and Contract for Faculty on Probation” (appointment contract), and its effectivity period covered the second semester of SY 2005-2006 -specifically from 4 November 2005 to 18 March 2006.

The appointment contract specified the status of Fallarme as a probationary faculty member. After the expiration of the contract, respondent college informed her that it would not be renewed for the first semester of SY 2006-2007. When she asked on what basis her contract would not be renewed, she was informed that it was the school’s “administrative prerogative.”

Petitioner Martinez-Gacos taught at respondent college from the start of SY 2003-2004 and continued to do so for a total of six semesters and one summer. Her engagement as a faculty member was signified by a memorandum issued by the school, which informed her that she had been hired. The memorandum, which was similar to that issued to Fallarme, did not specify whether Martinez-Gacos was being employed on a regular or a probationary status. Like Fallarme, even though Martinez-Gacos had been employed as a faculty member since SY 2003-2004, it was only on 1 March 2006 that the latter was ordered by respondent Valeriano Alejandro JU to sign and submit a written contract on the nature of her employment and corresponding obligations. The terms of the contract were similar to those in the contract signed by Fallarme. It was also denominated as “Appointment and Contract for Faculty on Probation,” and its effectivity period also covered the second semester of SY 2005-2006 -specifically from 4 November 2005 to 18 March 2006. Under the appointment contract, the probationary status of Martinez-Gacos was likewise specified for the first time. After the lapse of the contract’s effectivity, she was similarly informed that her contract would not be renewed for the first semester of SY 2006-2007. She was also told that the nonrenewal of her contract was made on the basis of “administrative prerogative.”

Petitioners submitted a letter to respondent Hernandez, questioning the nonrenewal of their respective employment contracts. Not satisfied with the reply, they filed a Complaint against respondents for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, back wages, and damages.

In their defense, respondents claimed that petitioners had been remiss in their duties. Specifically, both of them reportedly sold computerized final examination sheets to their students without prior school approval. Allegedly, Fallarme also sold sociology books to students, while Martinez-Gacos served as part-time faculty in another school and organized out-of-campus activities, all without the permission of respondent college. These infractions supposedly prevented it from considering their services satisfactory.

The Supreme Court held that they were considered regular employees since Day One of their employment.

It is established that while the Labor Code provides general rules as to probationary employment, these rules are supplemented by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools with respect to the period of probationary employment of private school teachers. As prescribed by the 1992 Manual, a teacher must satisfy the following requisites to be entitled to regular faculty status: (1) must be a full-time teacher; (2) must have rendered three years of service (or six consecutive semesters of service for teachers on the tertiary level); and (3) that service must have been satisfactory.

In Abbott Laboratories vs. Alcaraz, the Supreme Court explained that valid probationary employment under Art. 281 presupposes the concurrence of two requirements: (1) the employer must have made known to the probationary employee the reasonable standard that the latter must comply with to qualify as a regular employee; and (2) the employer must have informed the probationary employee of the applicable performance standard at the time of the latter’s engagement. Failing in one or both, the employee, even if initially hired as a probationary employee, shall be considered a regular employee.

Learn how to craft Legally Enforceable Probationary Contract

         With respect to the regularization of probationary teachers, the standards laid down in Abbott Laboratories apply to the third requisite under the 1992 Manual: that they must have rendered satisfactory service. As observed by this Court in Colegio de Santisimo Rosario vs. Rojo, the use of the term satisfactory connotes the requirement for schools to set reasonable standards to be followed by teachers on probationary employment.

         The SC posited that for how else can one determine if probationary teachers have satisfactorily completed the probationary period if standards therefor are not provided? Therefore, applying Article 281 of the Labor Code, a school must not only set reasonable standards that will determine whether a probationary teacher rendered satisfactory service and is for regular status. It must also communicate these standards to the teacher at the start of the probationary period. Should it fail to do so, the teacher shall be deemed a regular employee from Day One.

An examination of the records will show that when they were hired in 2003, they each signed a mere memorandum informing them that they had passed the qualifying examinations for faculty members, and that they were being hired effective first semester of SY 2003-2004. The memorandum did not indicate their status as probationary employees, the specific period of effectivity of their status as such, and the reasonable standards they needed to comply with to be granted regular status. The failure to inform them of these matters was in violation of the requirements of valid probationary employment.

The appointment contracts invoked by respondents appear to be an afterthought, as they asked petitioners to sign the contracts only when the latter’s three-year probationary period was about to expire. Apparently, this act was an effort to put a stamp of validity on respondents’ refusal to renew petitioners’ contracts.

(Fallarme vs. San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation, et al., G.R. Nos. 1900015 & 190019. September 14, 2016)