Legal Aspects of Hiring,
Discipline and Termination
of Teachers
Organized by:
ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III
Teacher-Lawyer
Paseo TLJ Education Services
Ateneo de Manila University
January 24, 2009
Pre-Employment
Q: Is a health certificate issued by the
city/municipal health officer of the locality
where the school is located a preemployment requirement?
A: Yes. As provided by the Rules and
Regulations Implementing PD 856, the
Code on Sanitation of the Philippines:
 No person shall be employed in any
school without first securing a health
certificate from the city/municipal health
officer of the locality where the
establishment is located.
 Health certificates are non-transferable
and shall be renewed annually (Sec. 11).
Q: May a school require job applicants to
undergo drug-testing?
A: Yes. According to the Rules and
Regulations Implementing RA 9165, the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002:
 All job applicants may be required to
undergo drug-testing and submit the result
thereof as a pre-employment requirement.
 The employer may deny hiring of applicant
found positive for drug use and/or refuse to
submit to a drug-test.
 The cost of pre-employment drug-testing
shall be shouldered by the applicant (DOLE
Order No. 53-03).
Employment
Q: What are the elements that determine the
existence of employer-employee
relationship?
A: The elements that are generally
considered are:
 The selection and engagement of the
employee;
 The payment of wages/salaries;
 The power of dismissal; and
 The employer’s power to control the
employee with respect to the means and
methods by which the work is to be
accomplished.
Q: Among the elements, what constitutes the
most important index of the existence of
employer-employee relationship?
A: It is the “control test” (Investment Planning
Corp. vs. Social Security System, G.R. No.
19124, Nov. 18, 1967)
Q: Why is it important to determine whether
the relationship between the parties is that
of employer and employee?
A: This is to determine what laws will govern
the rights and liabilities of the parties, and
what tribunal or court will have jurisdiction
over their disputes.
 Where there exists an employer-employee
relationship, labor laws will govern the rights
and liabilities of the parties, and labor
tribunals will have jurisdiction over their
disputes.
 Where the relationship is one of principal
and independent contractor, the ordinary
rules on obligations and contracts will apply
and the regular courts will have jurisdiction
over their disputes.
I. Classification of School
Personnel
A. ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
a. Teaching
 School personnel who are formally
engaged in actual teaching service
or in research assignments, either
on full-time or part-time
b. Non-Teaching
 Personnel that posses certain prescribed
academic functions directly supportive of
teaching such as:
• Registrars
• Librarians
• Guidance Counselors
• Other Similar Persons
• Industrial and job placement
coordinators
• Officials responsible for technical
education and skills development
matters (MRPS, Section 4 (m) No. 4 (c); and
TVET, Section 4 (18), par. (c) (iii)
B. NON-ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
School personnel usually
engaged in administrative
functions who are not
covered under the
definition of academic
personnel. They may
include school officials.
(MRPS, Section 4 (m) No. 4 (d); and
TVET, Section 4 (18), par. (c) (iv)
II. Significance of Distinction /
Classification
Section 89, MRPS and Section 73, TVET—
“x x x the employment of teaching and
non-teaching academic personnel shall
be governed by such rules as may from
time to time be promulgated in
coordination with one another by the
DepEd (CHED or TESDA) and the
DOLE.
Conditions of employment
of non-academic nonteaching school personnel
xxx shall be governed by
the appropriate labor laws
and regulations.
Q: What is meant by “security of tenure” of an
employee?
A: Security of tenure of an employee is his/her
right against unjust and arbitrary dismissal.
He/She cannot be deprived of work, which is
property in the constitutional sense, without a
just or authorized cause and without the
benefit of a hearing. It also includes his/her
right against unwarranted transfers, demotion
and diminution of benefits
III. Security of Tenure
A. PROBATIONARY PERSONNEL
a) Security of Tenure of Probationary Academic
Personnel
Unless otherwise provided by
contract, school academic personnel
under probationary employment cannot
be dismissed during applicable
probationary period.
Termination: Probationary Teachers
Biboso vs. Victoria Milling Co., Inc. (76 SCRA 250)
“The moment, however, the period
expired in accordance with contracts
freely entered into, they could no longer
invoke the constitutional protection.”
“Thereafter, the parties are free to renew
the contracts or not. In the instant case
where the petitioner did not wish to renew
the contract of employment for the next
school year, the complainant was not
illegally dismissed. Her contract merely
expired. (Colegio San Agustin)”
Esperanza Escorpizo vs. University of Baguio,
G.R. No. 121962, April 30, 1999
“Escorpizo was entitled to security of tenure during
the period of her probation but such protection ended
the moment her employment contract expired xxx and
she was not extended a new appointment. No vested
right to a permanent appointment had as yet accrued
xxx since she had not yet complied, during the
probation, with the prerequisites necessary for the
acquisition of permanent status. “ xxx (A)s respondent
was not under obligation to renew Escorpizo’s contract
xxx, her separation cannot be xxx without justifiable
cause. xxx Escorpizo’s was not illegally dismissed. Her
contract merely expired.”
Effect If Probationary Contract of Academic
Personnel Does Not Stipulate Period of Employment
Espiritu Santo Parochial School et al. vs. NLRC
(76 SCRA 250)
“SC said “x x x contracts
involved here stipulate no
period. In that eventuality,
the 3 years probationary
period provided for in MRPS
must apply.”
N.B.
To be VALID and BINDING upon the
employee, the CONTRACT must be agreed
to, expressed by SIGNING the CONTRACT.
If the CONTRACT is NOT signed, it is
deemed NOT ENFORCEABLE.
Effect If There Is No Enforceable
Contract At All
Pines City Education Center, et al. vs. NLRC
(227 SCRA 655)
“Eight (8) probationary
teachers out of 10 signed
contracts with fixed duration.
Upon expiration of contract, all
10 were terminated. Supreme
Court upheld dismissal of 8
teachers, but ordered
reinstatement of two (2) who
did not have contract.”
b) Security of Tenure of Probationary Nonacademic Personnel
Article 281 of the Labor Code provides—
“The services of an employee who has
been engaged on a probationary basis
may be terminated:
a) for just cause; or
b) when he fails to qualify as a regular
employee in accordance with
reasonable standards x x x.”
Resume of Distinctions In Law Between Probationary
Academic Personnel And Probationary Non-academic
Probationary Academic
As to duration
of maximum
probationary
period
As to the
applicability to
part-time
personnel
3 consecutive SYs or 6/9
consecutive semester (Formal)
or 4/8 consecutive semester
(TecVoc)
Probationary
Non-Academic
6 months only
Does NOT apply. Consolidated
Part-time becomes
Order No. 1 provides that PARTregular after
TIME never acquires regular
working for a
status. Hence, NO
number of days
PROBATIONARY
which completes 6EMPLOYMENT. Personnel must
months
be full-time.
As to
SECURIT
Y OF
TENURE
Probationary
Academic
Probationary
Non-Academic
Security of
Tenure limited
by the
period/term of
probationary
contract. That is,
upon expiration
thereof,
employment
may cease if not
Security of tenure
is not limited by
term in the
probationary
contract.
Employment is
not severed by
mere expiration
thereof.
Authorized or just
c) Security of Tenure of Regular or
Permanent Status
Section 93, MRPS—
“Regular or Permanent Status. - Those
who have served the probationary period
shall be made regular or permanent. Fulltime teachers who have satisfactorily
completed their probationary period shall
be considered regular or permanent.”
i. Regular Employment of Academic
Personnel
Three (3) requisites for private schools
academic personnel to acquire permanent/
regular status—
1) The teacher must be a full-time teacher;
2) The teacher must have completed the
probationary periods; and
3) Such service must have been
satisfactory
(1) Full-time teaching or academic personnel are
those meeting all the following requirements:
i) Who possess at least the minimum
academic qualifications prescribed by
the DepEd, CHED and TESDA.
ii) Who are paid monthly or hourly, based
on the normal or regular teaching loads
as provided for in the policies, rules and
standards of the agency concerned.
iii) Whose regular working day of not more
than 8 hours a day is devoted to the
school; and
iv) Who are not teaching full-time in any other
educational institution.
All teaching or academic personnel who do not
meet the foregoing qualifications are considered
PART-TIME.
B. Probationary Service Completed: Meaning
a) Probationary service completed must be
consecutive years or semester of full-time work.
“Years” refers to “School Years” not to
“calendar years”
N.B.
Assignment of teaching load during summer
term immediately after 3rd year, 6th or 9th
semester of teaching does NOT qualify implied
regular appointment.
C. “Satisfactory Service” to be determined
by Administration
Made known either—
•
Expressly – appointment made
designating personnel as regular /
permanent
•
Impliedly – renewal of contract for the
4th consecutive school year / 7th or 10th
consecutive semester
d) Security of Tenure of Regular or
Permanent Academic Personnel
When Academic Personnel acquire
regular status, security of tenure is no
longer limited by the term/period as stated
in the contract. The academic personnel is
assured of employment and cannot be
dismissed except on grounds of
professional incompetence or misconduct.
e) Regular Employment of Non-Academic
Personnel
Article 280 of the Labor Code—
For an employee to be considered regular,
he must be engaged to perform duties that
are usually necessary or desirable to the
employer’s ordinary course of business or
trade.
To be SUCH:
 Such engagement must last indefinitely
and should not be fixed for a specific
project or for a particular season.
Article 280 of the Labor Code (2nd par)—
Considers as regular anyone who has
rendered at least one (1) year’s service,
regardless of the nature of his duties. Such
employee must be retained as long as his
services are required and this does not need
formal appointment.
Q: May an employee who enjoys security of
tenure be validly dismissed?
A: Yes. Security of tenure does not guarantee
perpetual employment. If there is a just or
authorized cause the employer may
terminate the services of an employee; the
former cannot be legally compelled to have
in its employ a person whose continued
employment is patently inimical to its
interest.
Q: What are the consequences of the violation
of an employee’s security of tenure?
A: Art. 279 of the Labor Code provides that an
employee who is unjustly dismissed from
work shall be entitled to:
 Reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges; and
 Full backwages, inclusive of allowances,
and other benefits or their monetary
equivalent computed from the time his
compensation was withheld from him/her up
to the time of his/her actual reinstatement.
 He/She may also recover moral and
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Employee Discipline
Q: What is the intent of employee disciplinary
procedure?
A: The intent of the disciplinary procedure is to
provide supervisors with a framework in which
to communicate fairly, clearly and consistently
with staff members in the event of workrelated problems. Management rights must be
exercised fairly and in accordance with the
policies of the School. No employee shall be
disciplined except for just cause and after due
process shall have been observed.
Q: What is progressive discipline?
A: It is discipline based on a predetermined
formula which progresses from lesser
discipline, such as a warning or counseling,
to more severe discipline, such as
suspension or termination. The discipline is
accompanied by written documentation; a
system of discipline where the penalties
increase upon repeat occurrences.
Rene P. Valiao vs. Court ofAppeals, NLRC, West
Negros College, (G.R. No. 146621. July 30, 2004)
“Serious Misconduct and habitual neglect of
duties are among the just causes for terminating
an employee under the Labor Code. Gross
Negligence connotes want of care in the
performance of one’s duties. Habitual neglect
implies repeated failure to perform one’s duties for
a period of time, depending upon the
circumstances.xxx Repeated acts of absences
without leave and frequent tardiness reflect an
indifferent attitude to and lack of motivation in his
work.”
Further, the totality of infractions or number of
violations committed during the period of
employment shall be considered in determining
the penalty to be imposed upon erring employee.
The offenses committed should not be taken
singly and separately but on their totality. Fitness
for continued employment cannot be
compartmentalized into tight little cubicles as
aspects of character, conduct and ability separate
and independent of each other.
Q: What is summary discipline?
A: Summary discipline is the exception to
progressive discipline. For serious offenses,
such as fighting, theft, insubordination,
threats of dismissal may be the first and only
disciplinary step taken. Any step or steps of
the disciplinary process may be skipped at
the discretion of the school after
investigation and analysis of the total
situation, past practice, and circumstances.
Q: Is it essential to document employee
disciplinary matters?
A: It is essential that all matters related to
discipline be well documented and that there
be consistency between the documentation
on the disciplinary problem and any other
documentation for the same period, such as
performance reviews and merit increases.
Post-Employment
Q: What are the just causes for the dismissal of
an employee?
A: Art. 282 of the Labor Code enumerates the
just causes for the termination of the
employment by the employer. They are:
 Serious misconduct or willful disobedience
by the employee of the lawful order of
his/her employer or representative in
connection with his/her work;
 Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of
his/her duties;
 Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the
trust reposed in him/her by his/her employer or
his/her duly authorized representative;
 Commission of a crime or offense by the
employee against the person of his/her employer
or any immediate member of his/her family or
his/her duly authorized representative; and
 Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
Q: What are considered as analogous
causes?
A: These are grounds or causes which are
characterized by fault or culpability on the
part of the employee. One such analogous
cause is inefficiency.
Q: Aside from the grounds enumerated in Art.
282 of the Labor Code, are there other
lawful causes for the dismissal of
employees?
A: Yes. These are the “authorized causes”:
 Redundancy
 Retrenchment to prevent losses
 Closure or cessation of the establishment or
undertaking unless the closure or cessation
is for the purpose of circumventing the
provisions of the law (Art. 283, Labor Code)
 Disease (Art. 284, Ibid.)
Causes of
TERMINATION
A. Failure to Obtain Professional License
Sec. 27, RA 7836—
“No person shall practice xxx teaching
profession xxx without license.”
PRC Resolution No. 600 s. 1997—
“Those who fail to register by September
20, 2000 shall forfeit their privilege to
practice teaching xxx.”
However, in the case of Gloria Jean R.
Chaves vs. NLRC, St. Bridget School, et al.,
G.R. No. 166382, June 27, 2006, the Supreme
Court appears to have disregarded the clear
mandate of the law when it quoted in the above
case the letter of then Secretary of Education,
Raul Roco that private schools should “xxx
maintain status quo of your teaching staff and
ensure that the right to education is protected
and enhanced.”
B. Violation of Code of Ethics For
Professional Teachers
Article XII, Section 1—
“Any violation xxx shall
be sufficient ground for the
xxx revocation of xxx
license xxx”
C. Inefficiency and Incompetence in the
Performance of Duties
The employee who has consistently shown his inability
to efficiently perform his duties and responsibilities, within
a common performance standards
Every teacher shall uphold
the highest possible standards
of quality education, shall
make the best preparation for
the career of teaching, and
shall be at his best at all times
in the practice of his
profession.
In short—
A teacher is expected to be efficient and
competent in the performance of his academic
duties at all times.
Otherwise,
A teacher who has consistently shown his
inability to efficiently perform his duties and
responsibilities, within a common performance
standards should not be allowed to stay in school
xx.
The MRPS provides as just cause of terminating a
faculty-“Gross inefficiency and incompetence in
the performance of his duties xxx.”
(Section 94 (a))
Hence, the Supreme Court held in Evelyn Peña
vs. NLRC that—
“x x x schools can
set high standards of
efficiency for its
teachers since quality
education is a mandate
of the Constitution x x x
security of tenure x x x
cannot be used to
shield incompetence.”
D. Absences/Tardiness
 to be considered valid
causes for termination
under Section 94 of
MRPS, Section 78 of
TVET Manual and
Article 283 of the Labor
Code, absences and
tardiness must be
habitual and
inexcusable.
ISSUE:
When is there “HABITUALITY” in the absences
and tardiness?
ANSWER:
1) School policy may fix a maximum number of
absences or tardiness, in excess of which shall be
considered as ‘habitual’ and hence, if also
inexcusable, shall be tantamount to inefficiency
and incompetence.
N.B.
•
•
Policy must be made known to all personnel
concerned
The maximum number must be reasonable.
2) In the absence of an existing school policy,
the maximum number of absences for students as
provided for in Section 73 of MRPS may be
applicable.
REASON:
Rule in Section 73 is based on the presumption
that a student needs to attend at least 80% of class
days or hours to complete the course.
Hence, if a teacher incurs absences of more than
20% of his class hours, then the teacher failed to
complete the course. Such is incompetence in its
HIGHEST FORM.
ISSUE:
What if the frequency of absences is “Habitual”
in character but EXCUSABLE? Can teacher be
terminated?
ANSWER:
Supreme Court said—
“A working mother who has to frequently
absent because she has also to take care of her
child may also be removed because of her poor
attendance, xxx however, the award of separation
pay would be sustained under the social justice
xxx.” (PLDT vs. NLRC, 164 SCRA 671)
Rene P. Valiao vs. CA, NLRC and Western Negros
College, G.R. No. 146621, July 30, 2004
Supreme Court declared—
“Repeated acts of absences without
leave and frequent tardiness reflect an
indifferent attitude to and lack of
motivation in his work.”
E. NEGLECT OF DUTY
Neglect is defined as the failure to carry out
an expected or required action through
carelessness or by intention.
As a rule, “Neglect of Duty”, to be ground for
termination, must be both GROSS and
HABITUAL.
 Single or isolated acts of negligence do not
constitute just cause for dismissal
 But if the negligent act results to substantial
loss/damage to property or injury to person,
habituality is NOT necessary to justify dismissal
i. Failure to Exercise Parental Responsibility
“The school, its administrators and teachers, xxx
engaged in child care shall have special parental
authority and responsibility over the minor child while
under their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, xxx.”
Article 218, Family Code
“A teacher shall recognize that the interest and
welfare of learners are his first and foremost concern,
and shall handle each learner justly and impartially.”
(Article VII, Section 2)
Clearly, a teacher or school personnel
required to exercise special parental
responsibility but who fails to observe all
the diligence of a good father of a family in
the custody and care of the pupils and
students, shall be held liable for gross
neglect of duty.
Parental Responsibility
The student while in school, is in the
custody and hence, the responsibility of the
school authorities as long as he is under the
control and influence of the school, whether
the semester has not yet begun or has
already ended.
In Amadora vs. CA, the Supreme Court said—
“Even if the student is just relaxing
in the campus xxx the student is still
within the custody and subject to the
discipline and responsibility of the
teachers xxx.”
ii. Unreasonable Delay to Submit Students’
Grades
A teacher should be held answerable for
failure to submit grades or reports on time
in accordance with the reasonable
deadline.
BP 232 mandates that teachers shall
“(r)ender regular reports on performance of
each student and to the latter and the
latter’s parents or guardians with specific
suggestions for improvement.”
In the recent case of University of the East vs.
Romeo A. Jader, the Supreme Court, in no
uncertain terms, declared—
“The court takes judicial notice of the
traditional practice in educational
institutions wherein (teacher) directly
furnishes xxx students their grades. It is the
contractual obligation of the school
(through the teachers) to TIMELY INFORM
AND FURNISH sufficient notice and
information to each and every student xxx.”
“xxx The negligent act of a
(teacher) who fails to
observe the rules of the
school, for instance, by not
promptly submitting a
student’s grade is not only
imputable to the teacher but
is an act of the school being
his/her employer xxx.”
iii. Neglect to Keep School Records
School Personnel do have the duty to
keep the school records of each of his
students.
Duty is based on the pupils’/students’ or
their parents’ rights to access to their own
school records and the issuance thereof
at least within thirty (30) days from
request.
F. Immorality/Grave Misconduct
School employees, particularly
teachers and other academic
personnel, are definitely bound
by the rule that immorality is a
valid cause for termination. For
as teachers, they serve as an
example to the pupils and the
students, especially during their
formative years.
Query:
Is GRAVE MISCONDUCT/IMMORALITY
committed by School Personnel outside the
school campus and beyond school hours a
valid ground or just cause for termination?
Meaning of Grave Misconduct
Which is—
• The willful, improper behavior, and
implies wrongful intent and NOT
mere error of judgment
• Violation of an established and
definite rule of action
Labor Jurisprudence
For GRAVE MISCONDUCT to be valid
and just cause for termination—
“xxx must be a DIRECT
RELATION to and CONNECTED
with performance of official
duties.”
As a rule—
MISCONDUCT outside
workplace/beyond working hours
NOT a valid ground to terminate
employee
Is this applicable to
school administrators
or teachers?
Constitutional Duty
“All educational institutions xxx shall
teach the right and duties of citizenship,
strengthen ethical and spiritual values,
develop moral character and personal
discipline.
HENCE—
“Every teacher shall merit reasonable social
recognition for which purpose he shall behave with
honor and dignity at all times and refrain from such
activities as gambling, smoking, drunkenness and
other excesses, much less illicit relations.”
(Code of Ethics, Article III, Section 3)
“A teacher shall place premium upon selfrespect and self-discipline as the principle of
personal behavior in all relationships with others
and in all situations.”
(Code of Ethics, Article XI, Section 2)
“A teacher shall maintain at all times a
dignified personality which could serve as
model worthy of emulation by learners, peers,
and others.”
(Code of Ethics, Article XI, Section 3)
Joseph Santos vs. NLRC, Hagonoy Institute, Inc.
“As teacher, (one) serves as an example to his/her
pupils xxx.
Consequently xxx teachers must adhere to the
exacting standards of morality and decency. xxx A
teacher both in his official and personal conduct must
display exemplary behavior.”
He must freely and willingly accept restrictions on
his conduct that might be viewed irksome xxx the
personal behavior of teachers, IN AND OUTSIDE
THE CLASSROOM, must be beyond reproach xxx
they must observe a high standard of integrity and
honesty.”
G. OTHER MISCONDUCTS
i. Giving Failing Students Passing Grades
They Did `Not Deserve
Section 79 of the MRPS provides
that the final grade or rating given to a
pupil or student in a subject should be
based solely on his scholastic
performance.
Thus, it is not a matter of discretion on
the part of the teachers in the giving of the
students’ grades, but rather it is a clear
obligation for the teachers to determine
student academic marks solely based on
scholastic performance. For a teacher to do
otherwise, would be serious academic
malpractice or grave misconduct in the
performance of his/her duties.
ii. Influencing a Co-Faculty to Change
Grade
In the case of Wilfredo T. Padilla vs. NLRC and
San Beda College, the Supreme Court said—
“This Court is convinced that the
pressure and influence exerted by
petitioner on his colleague to change a
failing grade to a passing one, x x x
constitute serious misconduct, which is a
valid ground for dismissing an employee.”
However, in the case of NLRC, St. Jude Catholic
School, et al. vs. Bernadette Salgarino, (G.R. No.
164376, July 3, 2006)—
“To our mind, the acts of the respondent in
increasing the marks and indicating passing grades on
the white sheets of her students while she was on
maternity leave; xxx of making the increases in the
grades of the students during her maternity leave
which is not allowed since the substitute teachers
were the ones authorized to compute and give the
grades for the concerned students; and of invoking
humanitarian consideration in doing so which is not a
basis in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools
for grading a student, are all acts of transgression of
school rules, regulations and policies;
Truly, then, respondent had committed a
misconduct. However, such misconduct is not
serious enough to warrant her dismissal from
employment under paragraph (a) of Article 282
of the Labor Code.”
iii. Failure to Maintain Confidentiality of
School Records
BP 232 provides that the students shall have
the right to “x x x the CONFIDENTIALITY of
(their school records) which the School shall
maintain and preserve.
•
Confidentiality covers only STRICTLY
confidential records
1) Personal records
2) Academic
records/ reports
4) Adoption papers
5) Medical/guidance
reports
3) Birth Certificates
6) Disciplinary records
Code of Ethics provides—
“A teacher shall hold inviolate all
confidential information concerning
associates and the school, and shall
not divulge to anyone x x x”
(Article IV, Section 3)
iv. The sale of tickets or the collection of any
contribution in any form or for any
purpose or project whatsoever, whether
voluntary or otherwise, from pupils,
students and school personnel, except
membership fees of pupils and students
in the Red Cross, the Girl Scouts of the
Philippines and the Boy Scouts of the
Philippines
Sale of Tickets; Collection of Contribution/
Donations from Pupils / Parents
BP 232, Sec. 9 (9) - students have right to be free
from (voluntary) involuntary contributions
 Improper or unauthorized
solicitation of contributions from
parents and school children
 VIII, 5. A teacher shall not accept,
directly or indirectly, any remuneration
from tutorials other than what is
authorized for such service.
Anita Y. Salvarria vs. Letran College, et al.
(296 SCRA 184)
The Supreme Court declared—
“Petitioner contended that her dismissal
was arbitrarily xxx, having been effected
without just cause, on the premise that the
solicitation of funds xxx was initiated by the
students and that her participation was
merely limited to approving the same. xxx”
If there is one person more
knowledgeable of xxx policy against
illegal exactions from students, it would
be xxx Salavarria.
Hence, regardless of who initiated the
collections, the fact that the same was
approved or indorsed by petitioner, made
her ‘in effect the author of the project.’”
v. Contracting Loans from Students/
Parents
“xxx the Department considers the act of
teachers in “xxx contracting loans from
parents of their students xxx” not only a
serious misconduct based on Art. 282 (a)
of the Labor Code, but is likewise a
violation of a student’s right “xxx to be free
from involuntary contribution xxx” (Sec. 9
(9) of BP 232).”
Usec. Antonio E.B. Nachura
vi. Use of Corporal Punishment
Article 233 of the Family Code strictly
provides that “in no case shall the
school administrators, teacher xxx
exercising special parental authority,
inflict corporal punishment upon the
child.
viii.Use of Disciplinary Measures (punishment/
penalties) unbecoming of a good parent.
“As parents, the teachers shall use
discipline not to punish but to correct, not to
force, but to motivate; and not to obey with
rigid cadence, but to choose to follow the right
way.
Hence, teachers cannot use methods of
punishing or such degree of penalties that a
good mother or a good father would not likely
use on her/his own children.”
ix. Fighting Within Company Premises
In Celia Flores vs. NLRC, where employee was
involved in brawl/fighting, Supreme Court said—
“Fighting within company premises is a
valid ground for dismissing an employee. At
all events it was not necessary to determine
who started the fight; what is important is
that (the employee) engaged in a fight in the
work premises xxx.”
H. Willful Disobedience
The orders, regulations, or instructions of
the employer or representative must be:
1. Reasonable and lawful
2. Sufficiently known to the employee;
and
3. In connection with the duties which the
employee has been engaged to
discharge
ISSUES:
i. Disobedience to Transfer
-- It is management’s prerogative to transfer an
employee from one office to another within the
school system, provided that it does not amount
to a demotion in rank or diminution in pay.
-- Only limitation is mala fides. That is, the
employer cannot exercise this right is where it is
vitiated by improper motive;
-- Employee may disobey an inconvenient
transfer.
ii. Refusal to Accept Promotion
- This is not insubordination. No law exists
compelling the acceptance of a promotion,
since this takes the nature of a gift which a
person has the right to refuse.
- A transfer may be refused by the employee
if the transfer is coupled with or is in the nature
of a promotion.
iii. Refusal to Relinquish Teaching as
Required by School Administration
In Cruz vs. Medina, a faculty who rose from
the rank to the Deanship, but refused to
relinquish her teaching load even after
accepting the Dean’s position and required to by
Administration the Supreme Court stated-“x x x Considering the fact that she was
holding a managerial position, her refusal to
abide by the lawful orders of her employers
would lead to the erosion of the trust and
confidence reposed on her.”
Due Process Personnel
Discipline
Q: What is the procedure to be followed to
confirm to due process in the dismissal of
an employee?
A: Sec. 2, rule XIII, Book V of the Rules
Implementing the Labor Code provides:
For termination of employment based on
just cause as defined in Art. 282 of the
Labor Code:
 written notice served on the employee specifying
the ground or grounds for termination, and giving
to the said employee reasonable opportunity
within which to explain his/her side;
 A hearing or conference during which the
employee concerned, with the assistance of
counsel if the employee so desires, is given
opportunity to respond to the charge, present
his/her evidence or rebut the evidence presented
against him; and
 A written notice of termination served on the
employee indicating that upon due consideration
of all the circumstances, grounds have been
established to justify his/her termination.
For termination of employment based on
authorized causes, the requirements of due
process shall be deemed complied with upon
service of written notice to the employee and
the appropriate Regional Office of the DOLE
at least thirty (30) days before the effectivity
of the termination, specifying the ground or
grounds for termination.
Q: What is the prescriptive period for an
action for reinstatement?
A: An action for reinstatement by reason of
illegal dismissal is one based on an injury
to the complainant’s rights which should be
brought within four (4) years from the time
of his/her dismissal; this is pursuant to Art.
1146 pf the Civil Code.
-END-