G.R. No. 94523 - St. Theresita's Academy vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Case Digest (G.R. No. 94523)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background of the Case

The petitioner, St. Therese’s Academy and/or the Servants of St. Joseph represented by Sr. Anita Bago, sought to annul the NLRC resolution dated July 2, 1990.
The resolution, rendered by the Fourth Division of the National Labor Relations Commission (Cebu City), had affirmed with modification the earlier decision of the Labor Arbiter of Bacolod City (dated August 14, 1987) in RAB-VI-Case No. 0201-83.

Employment History of the Private Respondent (Lilia G. Ariola)

Ariola originally served as a school teacher from the school year 1954-55 up to 1975-76 (22 continuous years) and retired on March 30, 1976, receiving separation benefits of P4,927.30.
Post-retirement, she worked as an insurance underwriter before being invited by the Mother Superior in 1979 to return as a school teacher due to a need for qualified instructors in Mathematics and English.
It was agreed that her re-engagement would be as a regular teacher, not as a newly hired teacher, and she signed a renewable yearly contract.

Contractual and Payment Disputes

During the early years of her reemployment, Ariola and her co-teachers received a summer living allowance during the school years 1979-1980 and 1980-1981.
In June 1981, the allowance was deducted from their salaries, prompting protests.
School meetings were convened:

One meeting explained that payment of the summer living allowance had been an error and required reimbursement.
Another meeting discussed the legality of the deduction and nonpayment, where teachers appealed for the revival of the allowance.

The matter was escalated to the Ministry of Labor and Employment for further resolution.

Policy Change and Termination of Contract

On January 19, 1983, a board meeting was held by the Siervas de San Jose (owners and operators of the respondent school in Silay City) whereby it was resolved that effective for the school year 1983-84:

No retired teacher would be rehired, and
For those already recalled from retirement, the annual contract would not be renewed after four years of continuous satisfactory service.

On March 1, 1983, after four years of service post-rehire (covering the school years 1979-1980 to 1982-1983), Ariola was notified that her contract would not be renewed.
Subsequently, there was a petition filed with the Ministry of Labor and Employment regarding the impending termination of her teacher’s contract.

Proceedings Before the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter

On April 7, 1985, Ariola filed a complaint before the NLRC, National Arbitration Branch No. VI in Bacolod City for illegal dismissal. Her claims included:

Reinstatement with backwages,
Extra Compensation for Loss of Allowance (ECOLA),
Non-payment of allowances,
Underpayment of 13th month pay, and
Damages.

The Labor Arbiter’s decision on August 14, 1987, ordered the petitioner to pay separation pay computed at one-half (1/2) month’s salary for every year of Ariola’s service with the school.
On appeal by the school, the NLRC issued its modified ruling on July 2, 1990:

Held that the year-to-year contract with Ariola, being a rehired retired teacher, violated Article 280 of the Labor Code;
Determined that after exceeding three years of such contracts, Ariola had attained permanent status under Section 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools; and
Concluded that the school’s policy of not renewing contracts for recalled retired teachers violated her security of tenure.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that:

The NLRC decision was contrary to higher court precedents;
There was a confusion between probationary contracts for new teachers and the year-to-year contracts for recalled retirees; and
It was within the school’s prerogative to adopt a policy that did not allow for the reemployment or renewal of contracts of retired teachers.

Legal Provisions and Contractual Clauses Involved

Article 280 of the Labor Code was cited by the NLRC to define regular and casual employment, emphasizing that an employee becomes regular after rendering at least one year of service.
Paragraph 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provided that full-time teachers who have rendered three consecutive years of satisfactory service should be considered permanent.
Specific contractual clauses (paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Teacher’s Contract) affirmed:

The contract’s full force during the designated school year unless terminated for valid causes, and
The eventual permanent status of the teacher after meeting the requisite period (three years for new teachers).

Issues:

Status of Employment

Whether a teacher recalled from retirement who signs a renewable year-to-year contract should be considered a regular/permanent employee or remain on a probationary basis.
Whether the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code and Section 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools apply differently to recalled retirees versus newly hired teachers.

Legality of the School’s Policy

Whether the resolution passed by the Siervas de San Jose, which precludes the reemployment and contract renewal for retired teachers, violates the principle of security of tenure.
Whether the practice of not renewing Ariola’s contract after continuous satisfactory service contravenes the contractual stipulations and legal standards protecting regular employment.

Validity of the NLRC Decision

Whether the NLRC, in confirming that Ariola had become a regular employee and that her dismissal by mere expiration of the contract was unlawful, correctly applied the relevant Labor Code provisions.
Whether the NLRC’s modification of the Labor Arbiter’s decision by awarding separation pay and backwages is supported by the record and legal principles.

Interpretation of Contractual Provisions

Whether the language in the Teacher’s Contract regarding the probationary period and the attainment of permanent status was meant to apply similarly to recalled retired teachers.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 94523) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 94523) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 94523)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 94523)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model