Title
Supreme Court
Mt. Carmel College vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 117514
Decision Date
Oct 4, 1996
Teacher terminated for failing board exam; SC ruled no unexpired contract, reversing NLRC's ₱10,200 award, as probation ended in March 1992.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 117514)

Facts of the Case

Mrs. Normita A. BaAez was engaged by Mt. Carmel College as a probationary teacher under a written employment contract effective June 1, 1989. The contract outlined her monthly salary of P1,675.00 and specified that her employment would last from the academic year (SY) 1989-1990 until SY 1991-1992, with the stipulation that her employment could be terminated at any time if she failed to meet the conditions set by the school. In March 1992, the school terminated Mrs. BaAez's employment after she did not pass the National Teachers Board Examination.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

Following her termination, Mrs. BaAez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, finding that her dismissal was illegal, and ordered her reinstatement along with full back wages.

NLRC Appeal and Findings

The decision of the Labor Arbiter was appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which reversed the earlier ruling, concluding that Mrs. BaAez’s dismissal was, in fact, legal. However, the NLRC ordered the school to pay her P10,200.00, corresponding to her salary for the unexpired portion of her probationary period, calculating that her probation would have concluded in June 1992, three months after her termination.

Issue for Resolution

The petitioners sought to contest the NLRC's ruling, specifically questioning whether the NLRC had gravely abused its discretion by determining there existed an "unexpired portion" of Mrs. BaAez's probationary contract, which they argued expired at the end of the school year 1991-1992.

Legal Interpretation of Contract Duration

Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the interpretation of the contract was clear. The contract explicitly stated that Mrs. BaAez's employment, established by the school year calendar, ran from June to March of each academic year. The academic year typically comprises ten months, differing from a calendar year of twelve months. This delineation is critical to understanding the timeline of her employment.

Precedents Considered

The Court referenced previous cases, notably Espiritu Santo Parochial School v. NLRC and Colegio San Agustin v. NLRC, to highlight the distinction between a school year and a calendar year. Those rulings underscored that probationary periods described in academic terms cannot be equated to calendar years, thereby affirming the un

...continue reading

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