This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Handbook merely provides for two classes of employees for purposes of permanency, i.e., Faculty and Non-Academic. However, the same does not specifically classify the position of dean as part of the Faculty or of the Non-Academic personnel. At this juncture, we find solace in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools Annotated,[38] which provides that the college dean is the senior officer responsible for the operation of an academic program, the enforcement of rules and regulations, and the supervision of faculty and student services. We already had occasion to state that the position of dean is primarily academic[39] and, as such, he is considered a managerial employee.[40] Yet, a perusal of the Handbook yields the interpretation that the provision on the permanency of Faculty members applies to teachers only. But the Handbook or school manual must yield to the decree of the Manual, the latter having the character of law.[41] The specified probationary periods in Section 92 of the Manual are the maximum periods; under certain conditions, regular status may be achieved by the employee in less time.[42] However, under the given circumstances and the fact that the position of dean in this case is for a fixed term, the issue whether the respondent attained a regular status is not in point. By the same token, the application of the provision in the Manual as to the required probationary period is misplaced. It can be well said that a tenured status of employment co-exists and is co-terminous only with the definite term fixed in the contract of employment. | |||||