St. Mary'S Academy Of Dipolog City v. Palacio

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

The Court will not hesitate to defend the workers' constitutional right to security of tenure. After all, the interest of the workers is paramount as they are regarded with compassion under the policy of social justice. By this Petition for Review on Certiorari ,1 petitioner St.

Mary's Academy of Dipolog City (petitioner) assails the Decision2 dated September 24, 2003 and Resolution3 dated August 16, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67691, which affirmed with modification the Resolution4 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), dated April 30, 2001 holding the dismissal of respondents Teresita Palacio (Palacio), Marigen Calibod (Calibod), Levie Laquio (Laquio), Elaine Marie Santander (Santander), Eliza Saile (Saile), and Ma. Dolores Montederamos (Montederamos) as illegal, as well as the Resolution5 dated August 31, 2001 denying the motion for reconsideration. Factual Antecedents On different dates in the late 1990's, petitioner hired respondents Calibod, Laquio, Santander, Saile and Montederamos, as classroom teachers, and respondent Palacio, as guidance counselor.

In separate letters dated March 31, 2000,6 however, petitioner informed them that their re-application for school year 2000-2001 could not be accepted because they failed to pass the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET). According to petitioner, as non-board passers, respondents could not continue practicing their teaching profession pursuant to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) Memorandum No. 10, S. 19987 which requires incumbent teachers to register as professional teachers pursuant to Section 278 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7836, otherwise known as the Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994.9 Together with four other classroom teachers namely Gail Josephine Padilla (Padilla), Virgilio Andalahao (Andalahao), Alma Decipulo (Decipulo),10 and Marlynn Palacio,11 who were similarly dismissed by petitioner on the same ground, respondents filed a complaint contesting their termination as highly irregular and premature.

They admitted that they are indeed non-board passers, however, they also argued that their security of tenure could not simply be trampled upon for their failure to register with the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) or to pass the LET prior to the deadline set by RA 7836. Further, as the aforesaid law provides for exceptions to the taking of examination, they opined that their outright dismissal was illegal because some of them possessed civil service eligibilities and special permits to teach. Furthermore, petitioner's retention and acceptance of other teachers who do not also possess the required eligibility showed evident bad faith in terminating respondents.

Petitioner, on the other hand, maintained that it had repeatedly informed respondents of their obligation to comply with the mandate of the Memorandum issued by DECS by passing the LET to be eligible as a registered professional teacher. While the DECS Memorandum, pursuant to PRC Resolution No. 600, S. 1997,12 fixed the deadline for teachers to register on September 19, 2000,13 petitioner claimed that it decided to terminate their services as early as March 31, 2000 because it would be prejudicial to the school if their services will be terminated in the middle of the school year.

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter On September 22, 2000, the Labor Arbiter adjudged petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal because it terminated the services of the respondents on March 31, 2000 which was clearly prior to the September 19, 2000 deadline fixed by PRC for the registration of teachers as professional teachers, in violation of the doctrine regarding the prospective application of laws. Thus, petitioner was ordered to reinstate the respondents or to pay them separation pay at the rate of ½ month wage for every year of service, plus limited backwages covering the period from March 31, 2000 to September 30, 2000. The dispositive portion of the Labor Arbiter's Decision reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, anchored on the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered: 1.) that respondent's act of having terminated the complainants' employment is in fact and in law illegal, as it is not founded on any of the restricted just and authorized causes provided for by law[,] hence, entitling complainants to the right of reinstatement and backwages in accordance with the mandate of Article 279 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. In this case, however, separation pay is hereby directed against respondent together with the payment of limited backwages, as particularly reflected in paragraph "2" hereof; 2.) ordering respondent St. Mary's Academy to pay complainants their separation pay and limited backwages, particularly indicated as follows: A.) Teresita Palacio : a.) Separation pay . . . . . . . . . ₱ 11,250.90; b.) Limited backwages . . . . . 27,002.16; Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .