Aklan College v. Guarino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Rodolfo P. Guarino was employed by petitioner Aklan College, Inc. (ACI) as an instructor since 1972. He was appointed Acting Dean of the Commerce and Secretarial Department in 1974 and Acting Personnel Director in 1990. He went on leave from November 4, 1991, to November 4, 1992. Upon his return, ACI informed him that he could not reassume his position as Acting Dean due to disqualification and that the position of Acting Personnel Director was already filled. Consequently, Guarino filed a case for illegal dismissal. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision, ordering ACI to pay separation pay as Dean, reinstate Guarino as Personnel Director with backwages, and reinstate him as instructor without backwages. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the NLRC decision. Petitioners ACI and Msgr. Adolfo P. Depra filed a petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioners contend that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in disregarding the doctrine that no employee attains a second security of tenure to an administrative position. They argue that Guarino's appointments to administrative positions were acting and temporary, and he could be stripped of these positions without illegal dismissal, especially since he was never removed as an instructor. They also assert that Guarino lacked the required Master's degree for the Dean position, as per DECS Order No. 5, Series of 1990, and the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.
Issue(s)
Whether the termination of respondent Rodolfo P. Guarino from his positions as Acting Dean and Acting Personnel Director constitutes illegal dismissal. Whether respondent Guarino acquired security of tenure in his administrative positions. Whether petitioner ACI is estopped from assailing respondent's qualifications for the position of Acting Dean. Whether respondent is entitled to separation pay and backwages.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside. The Labor Arbiter's Decision dismissing the complaint for lack of merit is reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the termination of respondent's position as Acting Personnel Director: The Court held that the termination of respondent's position as Acting Personnel Director is valid. Similar to the ruling in La Salette of Santiago, Inc. v. NLRC, where an employee occupied various administrative positions in a non-permanent capacity, respondent's appointment as Acting Personnel Director was temporary and revocable. Having assumed the position in an acting capacity, he could not reasonably expect to have acquired security of tenure. The Court reiterated that an acting appointment is temporary and can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power without the need for cause or hearing, citing Achacoso v. Macaraig. On the termination of respondent's position as Acting Dean and the applicability of Article 280 of the Labor Code: The Court found the termination of respondent as Acting Dean also valid, despite his 17-year tenure in an acting capacity. The Court clarified that the DECS Order No. 5, Series of 1990, cited by petitioners, specifically applied to the Accounting Department, not the entire Commerce Department. However, the 1970 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, which was in effect at the time of dismissal, required a college dean to hold an appropriate graduate degree. Respondent lacked a Master's degree, a requirement for permanent appointment. Therefore, his prolonged service in an acting capacity did not grant him security of tenure, and his termination was valid under the law. The Court clarified that questions regarding a private school teacher's security of tenure are governed by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, not the Labor Code. Unlike teachers who can acquire permanency, administrative officials appointed as deans or department heads do not normally expect to acquire a second security of tenure. Respondent was not removed as an instructor, only from his administrative posts. On the issue of estoppel: The Court was not persuaded by the argument that ACI was estopped from assailing respondent's qualifications due to his long tenure. The Court stated that estoppel cannot validate an act prohibited by law or public policy. Respondent's appointment as Acting Dean was contrary to the express provisions of the 1970 Manual. Furthermore, respondent was aware of the Master's degree requirement and even received a scholarship to pursue it, but failed to complete it. His continued service was an act of grace, not a validation of his appointment. On procedural due process and separation pay: The Court held that there is no need for notice or hearing for an acting appointee, as such appointments are temporary and revocable. Since respondent was retained as an instructor, he was not entirely separated from the service and thus not entitled to separation pay. If he chose to seek other employment, it was considered a voluntary resignation, for which separation pay is not generally awarded unless stipulated or by established practice.
Main Doctrine
An employee appointed to an administrative position in an acting capacity does not acquire security of tenure and may be removed at any time by the appointing power without the need for cause or hearing. The failure of an educational institution to comply with the prescribed qualifications for an administrative position, even if the employee has served for a long period, does not estop the institution from terminating the appointment, as estoppel cannot validate an act prohibited by law.