G.R. No. 193897 - University of the East vs. Pepanio

In 1992, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) issued the Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.

Article IX, Section 44, paragraph 1(a) mandated that college faculty members must hold a master’s degree as the minimum educational qualification for acquiring regular status.

In 1994, the University of the East (UE) and the UE Faculty Association executed a five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective until 1999.

The 1994 CBA provided that college faculty lacking the minimum qualification (i.e., a master’s degree) would be given only semester-to-semester appointments, while those with the qualifications would be given probationary appointments subject to performance review over four semesters.

On February 7, 1996, a joint order by DECS-CHED-TESDA-DOLE reiterated that teaching personnel who did not meet minimum academic qualifications were not to acquire tenure or regular status.

Following the joint order, the UE President established a University Policy effective from the School Year 1996–1997:

The policy was to hire college teaching staff without postgraduate units or a master’s degree only on a semester-to-semester basis, and only in the absence of qualified applicants.

Mariti D. Bueno was hired in 1997 and Analiza F. Pepanio in 2000 on a semester-to-semester basis because they did not possess postgraduate degrees.
Bueno enrolled in six postgraduate subjects at the Philippine Normal University, though there was no evidence of course completion.
Pepanio earned 27 graduate units at the Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, which later lapsed as she did not continue within the allowed five-year period.

In 2001, UE and the UE Faculty Association entered into a new CBA that introduced the extension of probationary full-time appointments to those who did not have the required postgraduate degrees, provided they complied with the academic requirement during the probationary period.

This CBA allowed UE the option to replace probationary appointees if a qualified teacher became available at the end of a semester.

The Dean of the UE College of Arts and Sciences, Eleanor Javier, issued memoranda in October 2003 notifying probationary faculty members about the impending expiration of their probationary status due to the absence of requisite postgraduate qualifications.

Respondents communicated their respective positions: Pepanio indicated she was enrolled in further studies at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines Graduate School, while Bueno expressed disinterest in acquiring tenure as she was returning to her province.
A memorandum followed, recommending a two-semester extension for those seeking continuation.

Despite the notices and extension offers, neither respondent reported for work after the extension period, prompting Bueno to later demand regular employment based on her six-and-a-half years of full-load service and Pepanio to claim the same on the basis of three-and-a-half years of service.

Respondents filed illegal dismissal cases before the Labor Arbiter (LA), asserting that they were de facto regular employees given their extended service under the old CBA which supposedly conferred regular status.
On March 10, 2005, the LA ruled in favor of respondents, holding that Bueno and Pepanio were regular employees and ordered UE to reinstate them with backwages.
UE appealed the LA Decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Respondents raised a timeliness issue regarding the appeal period, referencing the postmaster’s notice and actual receipt dates of the LA Decision.

On September 27, 2006, the NLRC Third Division set aside the LA Decision, holding that the four-semester probationary period under the old CBA did not automatically confer regular status, as they still had to meet the prevailing standards as stipulated in the Manual of Regulations and the Joint Order.
The Court of Appeals (CA) reinstated the LA Decision on July 9, 2010, emphasizing the technicality regarding the computation of the appeal period.
Subsequent to the CA decision, UE filed a petition for certiorari, arguing on issues of timeliness and the alleged absence of a UE Board of Trustees’ certification authorizing petition signer Dean Javier.
Respondents also argued that since their appointments commenced during the 1994 CBA when the master’s degree was not required for regular status, they had satisfied the conditions for regularization.

Whether UE filed a timely appeal to the NLRC from the Labor Arbiter’s Decision given the dispute over the actual computed start of the 10-day period (either from the postmaster’s initial notice or from the actual receipt date).

Whether UE’s petition before the Court should be given due course despite its alleged failure to enclose a certification from the UE Board of Trustees authorizing petitioner Dean Javier to execute the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.

Whether the dismissal of respondents Bueno and Pepanio was illegal considering that their appointments were given on a semester-to-semester basis due to their lack of the required master’s degree, notwithstanding the provisions of the 1994 and 2001 CBAs.