Title
Source: Supreme Court
International School Manila vs. International School Alliance of Educators
Case
G.R. No. 167286
Decision Date
Feb 5, 2014
Evangeline Santos, a long-time teacher, was terminated for gross inefficiency after repeated performance deficiencies despite remediation efforts. The Supreme Court upheld her dismissal as valid but awarded separation pay for her years of service.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 167286)

Applicable Law and Instrumental Dates

  • Governing Law: 1987 Philippine Constitution and the 1987 Labor Code (particularly Article 282 on termination of employment)
  • Key Dates:
    • Santos hired as teacher in 1978
    • Performance evaluations and observations between 1993 and 1997
    • Professional Growth Plan dated March 29, 1996, and revised May 24, 1996
    • Administrative investigation and dismissal decision in 1997
    • Complaint filed before Labor Arbiter in 1997
    • Labor Arbiter decision in 2001
    • NLRC decision in 2003
    • Court of Appeals decision in 2004
    • Supreme Court decision in 2014

Facts: Santos’ Employment and Teaching Performance

Santos was employed as a Spanish language teacher from 1978 until she took a leave of absence in 1992-1993. Upon return in 1993, she agreed to teach one Spanish class and four Filipino classes—a subject she was untrained to teach. The School’s administrators monitored her performance through observations and formal evaluations from 1993 to 1997, using Classroom Standards Evaluation Forms to assess areas such as planning, teaching act, classroom climate, management, and communication.

Evaluation and Remediation Efforts

From 1993 onwards, reports consistently showed deficiencies in Santos’ lesson planning, classroom management, punctuality, use of effective teaching techniques, and ability to enforce classroom rules positively. A Professional Growth Plan was implemented beginning March 1996 to improve her performance with specified goals, action plans, and regular supervision meetings. Initial progress was noted; however, subsequent reports indicated that improvements were not sustained.

Administrative Investigation and Termination

Despite ongoing supervision, by 1997, Santos continued to submit vague and insufficient lesson plans, and her teaching performance remained below the School’s standards. The School initiated an administrative investigation, complying with procedural due process by providing Santos notice, opportunity to be heard with representation, and a formal conference. Consequently, on May 29, 1997, the School informed Santos of its decision to terminate her employment due to gross inefficiency, primarily based on failure to meet the established teaching standards despite remediation efforts.

Labor Arbiter’s Findings and Decision

The Labor Arbiter concluded that Santos’ dismissal was illegal, holding that her faults—such as once failing to prepare lesson plans and other deficiencies—did not amount to gross or habitual neglect as required under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Arbiter ordered separation pay in lieu of reinstatement and limited backwages, acknowledging both parties’ contributions to the dispute and recognizing strained relations.

National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Ruling

The NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's findings and decision, supporting the conclusion that dismissal was unwarranted given the lack of evidence of habitual neglect or serious grounds. The NLRC upheld the limited backwages and separation pay awards, dismissing the petitioners' appeal for lack of merit.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals partially affirmed the NLRC’s decision, maintaining that Santos was illegally dismissed. While recognizing the School’s reasons, the appellate court deemed dismissal too severe a penalty given the evidence of efforts to improve by Santos. Noting antagonistic relations, it awarded separation pay in lieu of reinstatement but deleted the backwages awarded to one complainant, Methelyn Filler.

Petitioners’ Arguments in the Supreme Court

Petitioners argued:

  • Santos’ repeated failure to meet teaching standards over several years amounted to gross and habitual neglect of duties under Article 282 of the Labor Code, justifying lawful dismissal.
  • The Professional Growth Plan and multiple supervisory interventions demonstrated serious efforts to improve her performance, which she failed to meet.
  • The Court of Appeals erroneously substituted its judgment over reasonable academic standards set by the School, which were neither arbitrary nor motivated by ill will.
  • Procedural due process was observed in the termination, thus separation pay and backwages should not have been awarded.

Respondents’ Counterarguments

Respondents contended:

  • The factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, affirmed by the NLRC and Court of Appeals, deserved finality and were supported by the evidence.
  • Santos exerted efforts to improve, and a single instance of inadequate lesson planning did not demonstrate habitual neglect or gross inefficiency.
  • The School recognized improvements and only later returned to concerns; nevertheless, termination was too harsh a penalty, given Santos' long prior good service record and lack of ill intent.

Supreme Court’s Evaluation and Ruling Criteria

The Supreme Court emphasized that findings of fact by administrative bodies are generally accorded respect, yet exceptions exist where there is misapprehension of facts or lack of substantial evidence. For lawful dismissal under Article 282, the employer must prove just cause by substantial evidence, and the employee must be given due process.

The Court reiterated the definition of gross and habitual neglect: gross negligence means failure to exercise slight diligence or care, and habitual neglect entails repeated failure over time. Gross inefficiency, considered analogous to gross neglect, is also a valid ground for dismissal if it causes damage or detriment to the employer. The Court underscored that schools have the prerogative to impose reasonable quality standards on teaching staff in line with academic freedom and constitutional mandates to provide quality education.

Findings on Petitioners’ Proof of Just Cause

The Court found that Santos’ deficiencies—especially in lesson planning, classroom management, and effective teaching methods—were long-standing, repeatedly noted, and formally addressed through evaluations and the Professional Growth Plan. Although improvements were initially observed, these were not sustained, and further school records showed recurring failures. The evidence was sufficient to prove Santos’ gross inefficiency.

The Court rejected the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the superviso

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms