Facts:

The case involves Aklan College, Incorporated (ACI) and Msgr. Adolfo P. Depra as petitioners, and Rodolfo P. Guarino as the respondent. The events leading to the case began in 1972 when Guarino was hired as an instructor at ACI. By 1974, he was appointed as the Acting Dean of the Commerce and Secretarial Department. On November 26, 1990, he was appointed as Acting Personnel Director, a position he held temporarily until revoked by the college's President or Rector. Guarino took a leave of absence from November 4, 1991, to November 4, 1992. Upon his return, he expressed his intention to resume his positions, but ACI informed him that he could not return as Acting Dean due to a lack of qualifications and that the position of Acting Personnel Director had been filled. Consequently, on November 11, 1992, Guarino filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Department of Labor in Kalibo, Aklan. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint for lack of merit on May 24, 1994. Guarino...

Facts:

1. Employment History:

   • Rodolfo P. Guarino (respondent) was first hired by Aklan College, Inc. (ACI) in 1972 as an instructor.
   • In 1974, he was appointed as Acting Dean of the Commerce and Secretarial Department.
   • On November 26, 1990, he was appointed as Acting Personnel Director on a temporary basis, subject to revocation by the President or Rector of the College.

2. Leave and Reinstatement Attempt:

   • On November 4, 1991, respondent went on a one-year leave.
   • On October 20, 1992, he informed ACI of his intention to reassume his positions.
   • ACI responded that he could not reassume his position as Acting Dean due to lack of qualifications and that the Acting Personnel Director position had already been filled.

3. Legal Action:

   • On November 11, 1992, respondent filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Department of Labor.
   • The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, ordering reinstatement, backwages, and separation pay.
   • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC decision.

4. Petitioners' Argument:

   • ACI and Msgr. Adolfo P. Depra argued that respondent’s administrative positions (Acting Dean and Acting Personnel Director) were temporary and could be revoked without cause, citing the case of La Salette of Santiago, Inc. v. NLRC.
   • They contended that respondent was not dismissed as an instructor and thus was not illegally dismissed.

5. Respondent's Argument:

   • Respondent claimed that his 17-year tenure as Acting Dean conferred security of tenure under Article 280 of the Labor Code.
   • He argued that his appointment was not for a fixed term and that his long service made his position permanent.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Temporary Appointments:

   • An acting appointment is temporary and revocable at the pleasure of the appointing authority. The holder of such an appointment does not acquire security of tenure.

2. Qualifications for Administrative Positions:

   • The Manual of Regulations for Private Schools imposes minimum qualifications for administrative positions, such as a master’s degree for the position of Dean. Failure to meet these qualifications justifies dismissal.

3. Security of Tenure:

   • Security of tenure applies only to permanent positions. Administrative positions, especially those held in an acting capacity, do not confer additional security of tenure.

4. Separation Pay:

   • Separation pay is not due if the employee is not separated from service. Voluntary resignation or refusal to return to a retained position does not entitle the employee to separation pay.

5. Estoppel and Illegality:

   • Estoppel cannot validate an act prohibited by law. Respondent’s long service as Acting Dean did not override the legal requirement of a master’s degree for the position.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the CA decision, and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the complaint. Respondent’s termination as Acting Dean and Acting Personnel Director was valid, and he was not entitled to separation pay or backwages.