Probationary Employment
Illegal Dismissal
MAGIS YOUNG ACHIEVERS' LEARNING CENTER and MRS. VIOLETA T. CARIÑO,
Petitioners,
vs. ADELAIDA P. MANALO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 178835 February 13, 2009
FACTS:
On April 18, 2002, respondent Adelaida P. Manalo was hired as a teacher and acting principal of
petitioner Magis Young Achievers’ Learning Center.
Respondent wrote a letter of resignation which should have expressly effective on April 1, 2003
addressed to Violeta T. Cariño, directress of petitioner. Then, respondent received a letter of
termination from petitioner stating therein her termination of contract which will expire on March
31, 2003.
Respondent instituted against petitioner a Complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of
13th month pay, with a prayer for reinstatement, award of full backwages and moral and
exemplary damages.
Respondent claimed that her termination violated the provisions of her employment contract,
and that the alleged abolition of the position of Principal was not among the grounds for
termination by an employer under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
She further asserted that petitioner infringed Article 283 of the Labor Code, as the required 30-
day notice to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) and to her as the employee,
and the payment of her separation pay were not complied with. She also claimed that she was
terminated from service for the alleged expiration of her employment, but that her contract did
not provide for a fixed term or period.
Petitioner, in its position paper, countered that respondent was legally terminated because the
one-year probationary period, from April 1, 2002 to March 3, 2003, had already lapsed and she
failed to meet the criteria set by the school pursuant to the Manual of Regulation for Private
Schools, adopted by the then Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), paragraph
75.
Labor Arbiter (LA) Renell Joseph R. dela Cruz rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint for
illegal dismissal, including the other claims of respondent, for lack of merit, except that it ordered
the payment of her 13th month pay.
Respondent Manalo appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which
reversed the decision of the LA. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was also denied in the
NLRC’s Resolution.
Petitioner appealed to CA which affirmed the NLRC decision and dismissed the petition.
ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not the probationary appointment of the respondent was for a fixed period of one
(1) year, or without a fixed term, inasmuch as the parties presented different versions of the
employment agreement.
(2) Whether or not respondent, even as a probationary employee, was illegally dismissed.
HELD:
(1) "Academic personnel" in private schools, colleges and universities, probationary
employment is governed by Section 92 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools
(Manual). This was supplemented by DOLE-DECS-CHED-TESDA Order No. 1 dated February
7, 1996, which provides that the probationary period for academic personnel shall not be more
than three (3) consecutive school years of satisfactory service for those in the elementary and
secondary levels.
Thus, for academic personnel in private elementary and secondary schools, it is only after one
has satisfactorily completed the probationary period of three (3) school years and is rehired that
he acquires full tenure as a regular or permanent employee.
The SC is confronted with two (2) copies of an agreement, one with a negative period and one
provided for a one (1) year period for its effectivity. Ironically, none among the parties offered
corroborative evidence as to which of the two (2) discrepancies is the correct one that must be
given effect
Following Article 1702 of the Civil Code that all doubts regarding labor contracts should be
construed in favor of labor, then it should be respondent’s copy which did not provide for an
express period which should be upheld, especially when there are circumstances that render
the version of petitioner suspect. This is in line with the State policy of affording protection to
labor, such that the lowly laborer, who is usually at the mercy of the employer, must look up to
the law to place him on equal footing with his employer.
In addition, the employment agreement may be likened into a contract of adhesion considering
that it is petitioner who insists that there existed an express period of one year from April 1,
2002 to March 31, 2003, using as proof its own copy of the agreement. While contracts of
adhesion are valid and binding, in cases of doubt which will cause a great imbalance of rights
against one of the parties, the contract shall be construed against the party who drafted the
same. Hence, in this case, where the very employment of respondent is at stake, the doubt as
to the period of employment must be construed in her favor.
(2) YES. Respondent was hired as a probationary teacher and, as such, it was incumbent upon
petitioner to show by competent evidence that she did not meet the standards set by the school.
This requirement, petitioner failed to discharge. To note, the termination of respondent was
effected by that letter stating that she was being relieved from employment because the school
authorities allegedly decided, as a cost-cutting measure, that the position of "Principal" was to
be abolished. Nowhere in that letter was respondent informed that her performance as a school
teacher was less than satisfactory.
In the absence of an express period of probation for private school teachers, the three-year
probationary period provided by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools must apply
likewise to the case of respondent. In other words, absent any concrete and competent proof
that her performance as a teacher was unsatisfactory from her hiring on April 18, 2002 up to
March 31, 2003, respondent is entitled to continue her three-year period of probationary period,
such that from March 31, 2003, her probationary employment is deemed renewed for the
following two school years.
The petition is DENIED.
