Title
Dator vs. University of Santo Tomas
Case
G.R. No. 169464
Decision Date
Aug 31, 2006
A UST faculty member's teaching load was reduced due to undisclosed full-time employment with the Ombudsman, upheld by courts as justified under UST Faculty Code.
teaching load
employment status
reduction

Case Summary (G.R. No. 169464)

Factual Background

Petitioner’s employment with UST began in June 1983, when he was appointed as Instructor I with a maximum teaching load of 24 units. In 1995, he obtained additional employment with the Office of the Ombudsman as Graft Investigation Officer II. UST later discovered this outside employment only during the first semester of School Year 2000-2001. UST then invoked Section 5, Article III of the UST Faculty Code, which provides that faculty members who have a full time outside employment other than teaching may not be given a teaching load in excess of 12 hours per week.

On June 16, 2000, UST informed petitioner that his teaching load would be reduced to 12 hours per week. Petitioner sought reconsideration. UST granted his request and gave him an additional load of three teaching hours. For School Year 2001-2002, petitioner again requested an additional load of three units, but respondent Rev. Fr. Aligan denied the request on the ground that granting it would negate the policy and make it general rather than an exception.

Petitioner then initiated internal grievance steps. He filed a complaint-affidavit with the Chairperson of the Grievance Committee and the President of the UST Faculty Union. The complaint was dismissed. He appealed to respondent Rev. Fr. Lana, but the appeal was denied. Petitioner thereafter filed the labor complaint for illegal reduction and constructive dismissal.

Relevant CBA and UST Faculty Code Provisions

Petitioner anchored his claim on the CBA, particularly Article IV. He invoked Section 3 (Normal Teaching Load), which guarantees every faculty member with a permanent appointment entitlement to no less than the same teaching load or assignment as in previous semesters, excluding overloads and substitute load, except in justified deloading as provided. He also invoked Section 5 (Reduction of Teaching Load), which enumerates specific grounds for reduction. These grounds include: (a) reduction in classes or sections, with compensating availability; (b) non-offering of specialized subjects; (c) sanction for inefficiency duly proven after due process; and (d) failing health. He further relied on Section 6 (Procedure for the Reduction of Load), which prescribes distribution rules based on factors such as seniority, subject handling, rank, and efficiency rating, and provides separate priority criteria for non-tenured faculty.

Respondents, however, relied on Sections 5 and 6 of Article III of the UST Faculty Code, which—according to respondents—govern the teaching load of faculty members who hold full-time outside employment. Section 5 establishes that full-time outside employment other than teaching limits teaching load to the hours corresponding to the maximum arrangement stated in the Faculty Code. Section 6 requires that faculty members submit each semester in writing a statement of teaching hours in other institutions and/or daily hours of work or employment inside or outside UST.

Proceedings Before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC

The labor complaint came before the Labor Arbiter, which ruled in favor of respondents. The Labor Arbiter held that when Section 5, Article III of the Faculty Code is evaluated together with the CBA, the situation contemplated by Section 5 constitutes a ground for teaching load reduction. Petitioner’s action was dismissed.

On appeal, the NLRC ordered the restoration of petitioner’s faculty status to full-time. Respondents moved for reconsideration, which the NLRC denied. Petitioner’s partial motion for reconsideration regarding backwages and damages was also denied. Respondents then went to the Court of Appeals through a petition for certiorari.

Court of Appeals’ Ruling

The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC and sustained the Labor Arbiter. The Court of Appeals annulled the NLRC decision and resolution for having dismissed petitioner’s complaint for lack of merit. It held that the NLRC had applied incorrect rules and misappreciated evidence, particularly by disregarding the UST Faculty Code’s continuing applicability and its reconciliation with the CBA.

The Court of Appeals emphasized Article XX of the CBA, entitled “FACULTY CODE.” Under this clause, the Faculty Code provisions that are not otherwise incorporated into the CBA and are not in conflict with the CBA “shall remain in full force and effect.” It further provided that in the event of conflict between a Faculty Code provision and the CBA, the CBA provision prevails.

Applying this framework, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Article IV of the CBA dealt with teaching load rules in normal circumstances and grounds for deloading of tenured faculty, but did not address when a faculty member should be considered full-time or part-time. That determination, the Court of Appeals held, was governed by Section 5, Article III of the Faculty Code. Consequently, it ruled that the CBA’s deloading provisions were inapplicable to the change involved in petitioner’s case, which was characterized as a change of status from full-time faculty with a 24-unit load to a part-time one with a 12-unit load because petitioner was already a full-time employee elsewhere.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner assigned error on multiple grounds, including: that the reduction was without just cause, without due process, and in violation of the extant CBA; that respondents misinterpreted the provisions of the CBA and Faculty Code; that he was wrongly found to have committed misrepresentation; and that the burden of proof and bad faith were improperly evaluated.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court narrowed the controversy to two issues: (1) whether the reduction of petitioner’s teaching load was justified, and (2) whether petitioner was denied due process.

The Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner contended that he was a tenured faculty member entitled to maintain the same teaching load as in prior semesters. He insisted that UST’s reduction violated the CBA and his right to security of tenure. He further argued that the Faculty Code was inapplicable because it had been superseded by the CBA. On the procedural aspect, petitioner claimed denial of due process and asserted that respondents acted in bad faith.

Respondents maintained that UST reduced petitioner’s teaching load in accordance with Section 5, Article III of the Faculty Code. They argued that they did not violate petitioner’s right to due process because he had opportunities to be heard. They also asserted that petitioner had failed to truthfully disclose his full-time employment with the Office of the Ombudsman and that his representations were repeated and deliberate.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that while the CBA provided grounds for reduction of teaching load, the question of whether the faculty member was considered full-time or part-time was addressed by the UST Faculty Code, which imposes the teaching load limitation when the faculty member simultaneously serves as a full-time employee elsewhere. The Court found no dispute that petitioner held a full-time position with the Office of the Ombudsman while working as a faculty member in UST. Hence, Section 5, Article III of the Faculty Code applied.

In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court adopted the reasoning that the NLRC had committed reversible error by disregarding the Faculty Code in view of Article XX of the CBA. The Court of Appeals had concluded that there was no conflict between the CBA provisions petitioner cited and the Faculty Code provisions respondents invoked, because both sets of provisions apply to different situations. The CBA’s Article IV on teaching loads and authorized deloading reasons did not cover the determination of full-time versus part-time status; the Faculty Code governed that status classification. Accordingly, petitioner’s case involved not the “authorized” deloading contemplated in the CBA, but the “disqualification” under the Faculty Code arising from petitioner’s full-time outside employment, compounded by petitioner’s repeated misrepresentations about his employment status.

The Supreme Court rejected petitioner’s attempt to avoid disclosure obligations by arguing that the Office of the Ombudsman did not fall within the categories of information he believed he was required to report. The Court found the argument flimsy. It pointed to Section 6, Article III of the Faculty Code, which required all faculty members to submit each semester a written statement of teaching hours in other institutions and/or daily hours of work or employment inside or outside UST. The Court held that this rule aimed to maintain UST’s educational quality and to ensure that government service was not jeopardized.

The Court further concluded that petitioner was not denied due process. Due process in this setting, the Court explained, meant simply an opportunity to be heard. The record showed that UST informed petitioner that his teaching load would be reduced because he worked full-time with the Office of the Ombudsman. Petitioner was granted a first reconsideration, during which he received an additional load for School Year 2000-2001. For School Year 2001-2002, UST denied petitioner’s further request for an additional load. After that denial, petitioner used UST’s grievance procedures under the CBA. When his internal grievance was dismissed, he appealed to the UST Rector. The Court

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms