Title
Supreme Court
Son vs. University of Santo Tomas
Case
G.R. No. 211273
Decision Date
Apr 18, 2018
Professors dismissed by UST for lacking Master’s degrees despite CBA tenure claims; SC upheld termination, citing CHED regulations and academic freedom.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211273)

Petitioners

– Raymond A. Son
– Raymond S. Antiola
– Wilfredo E. Pollarco
All hired as probationary faculty (Son and Antiola in June 2005; Pollarco in June 2004), their appointments conditioned on completing a graduate degree and rendering satisfactory service.

Respondents

– University of Santo Tomas (UST)
– Fr. Rolando Dela Rosa, Dr. Clarita Carillo, Dr. Cynthia Loza, Fr. Edgardo Alaurin
– College of Fine Arts and Design Faculty Council
These officials and bodies implemented the non-renewal of the petitioners’ contracts for failure to complete a master’s degree.

Key Dates

– June 2004 & June 2005: Petitioners hired on probationary status
– March 3, 2010: CHED issues Memorandum directing strict implementation of master’s-degree requirement (Memo Order No. 40-08)
– June 11, 2010: Termination letters issued for non-renewal of appointments
– March 17, 2011: Labor Arbiter finds illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice
– August 10 & October 30, 2011; January 22, 2013: NLRC decisions vacillate between reinstating labor-arbiter ruling and dismissing complaints
– September 27, 2013 & January 29, 2014: Court of Appeals grants certiorari petition, upholds UST’s action
– April 18, 2018: Supreme Court resolves the petition

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XIV, Section 5(2) (academic freedom)
– Labor Code Article 281 (termination of probationary employees)
– DECS Order No. 92, Series of 1992 (Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools)
– CHED Memorandum Order No. 40-08 (Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education, 2008)
– Civil Code Articles 1409, 1411–1412 (void contracts, pari delicto)

Factual Background

Petitioners were engaged as probationary faculty under a CBA provision that conferred tenure after six consecutive semesters of satisfactory full-time service, even without a master’s degree, so long as the degree was completed within five semesters. In 2010, CHED directed strict adherence to the master’s-degree requirement. UST then refused to renew appointments of those without the requisite degree who did not file a prescribed appeal. Petitioners, believing they had vested tenure under the CBA, did not appeal and received non-renewal letters citing failure to comply with degree requirements.

Labor Arbiter Decision

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the CBA’s tenure-by-default provision had vested tenure rights and that UST committed illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice by not observing due process and the twin-notice rule. Full reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney’s fees were awarded.

National Labor Relations Commission Decisions

– August 10, 2011: NLRC Special Division affirms labor-arbiter decision, upholding CBA over CHED Memorandum.
– March 26, 2012: A reconstituted NLRC Special Division reverses the August decision, holds CHED Memo Order No. 40-08 is equivalent to law and voids the CBA tenure provision.
– October 30, 2012: NLRC Second Division grants petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, reinstates the labor-arbiter decision on the same reasoning that the CBA supersedes CHED Memo and that the Memo is directory and non-retroactive.
– January 22, 2013: NLRC denies further reconsideration.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals granted the certiorari petition filed by UST, ruling that:

  1. The CBA provision granting tenure by default without a master’s degree was void as contrary to law and public policy.
  2. UST validly terminated probationary employees failing to meet published, reasonable standards (completion of requisite degree).
  3. The exercise of academic freedom and management prerogative permits an educational institution to set and enforce qualification standards for its faculty.
    Accordingly, it reversed the NLRC decisions favorable to petitioners and reinstated the March 26, 2012 NLRC ruling dismissing the complaints.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment. It held that:
– The 1992 Revised Manual of Regulations for Private S


...continue reading

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