Carandang v. Dulay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Felisa D. Carandang was hired as a high school teacher by the Diocesan Schools of La Union in 1974 and taught until 1979, when she resigned to pursue graduate studies. Her plans were delayed by childbirths in 1979 and 1980. She resumed graduate studies in 1984 and would have completed her masteral subjects in 1985, except for the thesis. In February 1985, she applied for re-employment and was rehired in March 1985. She was appointed Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Notre Dame Institute with the rank of principal for the school years 1986-87 and 1987-88. In 1987, she received an "Appointment" from the respondent school. She continued as OIC until informed by a letter dated March 25, 1988, that her contract as teacher and OIC would not be renewed after the school year due to failure to pass an evaluation for probationary employees. She deferred legal action upon assurances of discussion, and assisted in enrollment for the next school year. The school later informed her they would employ her only until July 1988. She considered the March 25, 1988 letter as a final termination. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter, who found the dismissal without just cause and ordered backwages, separation pay (including 1974-79 service), moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Both parties appealed. Petitioner sought increased damages, while private respondents appealed on the merits. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the labor arbiter's decision, ruling that petitioner, as a probationary employee, was validly separated within the three-year evaluation period for failing the performance evaluation. The Petition: Petitioner challenges the NLRC resolution, alleging grave abuse of discretion. The Solicitor General could not sustain the NLRC's position and prayed to be excused from filing a comment, which the Court granted, ordering the public respondent to file its own comment.
Issue(s)
Whether public respondent NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in finding that petitioner was validly separated from service; and whether petitioner had attained permanent status as a teacher at the time of her separation. On the award of damages and separation pay.
Ruling
The Court ruled in the affirmative, finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the public respondent. The resolution of the NLRC was set aside. Private respondents were ordered to pay petitioner backwages, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion and petitioner's employment status: The Court found that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. While the NLRC and private respondents argued that petitioner, having resigned in 1979 and reapplied in 1985, had to start as a probationary employee from "zero" experience, and that her previous service from 1974-1979 could not be credited, the Court noted that her application letter in 1985 explicitly stated she resigned and was willing to "undergo the usual operational procedure." This confirmed she began as a probationary employee upon re-hiring in 1985. However, the Court found that petitioner had attained permanent status before her dismissal. Paragraph 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools states that full-time teachers rendering three consecutive years of satisfactory service are considered permanent, with three years being the maximum probationary period. The "Appointment" issued to petitioner for the school year 1987-1988 explicitly stated "For permanent employment only" and was signed by both the school official and the petitioner. This "appointment" unequivocally acknowledged her as part of the regular work force, estopping the private respondents from claiming otherwise. Furthermore, she was allowed to work beyond the maximum three-year probationary period by assisting in student enrollment for the next semester, solidifying her permanent status. The grounds cited for non-renewal, such as failure in evaluation, disregarding advice on grading, violating school policies, improper conduct during graduation ceremonies, and participation in local elections, were found to be unsupported by evidence and mere fabrications to justify a wrongful dismissal, as correctly held by the labor arbiter. Therefore, her separation was illegal. On the award of damages and separation pay: As an employee illegally dismissed, petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and backwages. However, due to strained relations, reinstatement was deemed no longer feasible, and separation pay was awarded in lieu thereof. The separation pay was to be computed at one month's pay per year of service, but only from March 1985 to March 1988, as her previous tenure from 1974-1979 could not be credited due to her resignation. The award of moral and exemplary damages granted by the labor arbiter was reinstated. Attorney's fees were fixed at ten percent (10%) of the total award.
Main Doctrine
A teacher who resigned and was subsequently re-hired is considered a probationary employee starting from the date of re-hiring, and her previous service cannot be credited. However, an "Appointment" explicitly stating "For permanent employment only" and signed by the school official and the employee, coupled with continued service beyond the maximum probationary period, establishes permanent status, estopping the school from claiming otherwise. Dismissal without just cause entitles the employee to reinstatement or separation pay, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees.