This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-04-02 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, it is the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, and not the Labor Code, that determines whether or not a faculty member in an educational institution has attained regular or permanent status.[25] Section 93[26] of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides that full-time teachers who have satisfactorily completed their probationary period shall be considered regular or permanent. | |||||
|
2013-12-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| At this juncture, we reiterate the rule that mere completion of the three-year probation, even with an above-average performance, does not guarantee that the employee will automatically acquire a permanent employment status.[17] It is settled jurisprudence[18] that the probationer can only qualify upon fulfillment of the reasonable standards set for permanent employment as a member of the teaching personnel. In line with academic freedom and constitutional autonomy, an institution of higher learning has the discretion and prerogative to impose standards on its teachers and determine whether these have been met. Upon conclusion of the probation period, the college or university, being the employer, has the sole prerogative to make a decision on whether or not to re-hire the probationer. The probationer cannot automatically assert the acquisition of security of tenure and force the employer to renew the employment contract. In the case at bar, Manaois failed to comply with the stated academic qualifications required for the position of a permanent full-time faculty member. | |||||
|
2012-11-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Morales, finally, argues that the CA erred in upholding the validity of the 10 November 2003 Release, Waiver and Quitclaim which he supposedly signed out dire economic necessity. While "it may be accepted as ground to annul [a] quitclaim if the consideration is unconscionably low and the employee was tricked into accepting it, [dire necessity is not, however,] an acceptable ground for annulling the release when it is not shown that the employee has been forced to execute it."[45] Not having sufficiently proved that he was forced to sign said Release, Waiver and Quitclaim, Morales cannot expediently argue that quitclaims are looked upon with disfavor and considered ineffective to bar claims for the full measure of a worker's legal rights. This Court has held that not all quitclaims are per se invalid or against public policy, except (1) where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or (2) where the terms of settlement are unconscionable on their face.[46] These two instances are not present in this case. | |||||
|
2009-02-13 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The common practice is for the employer and the teacher to enter into a contract, effective for one school year. At the end of the school year, the employer has the option not to renew the contract, particularly considering the teacher's performance. If the contract is not renewed, the employment relationship terminates. If the contract is renewed, usually for another school year, the probationary employment continues. Again, at the end of that period, the parties may opt to renew or not to renew the contract. If renewed, this second renewal of the contract for another school year would then be the last year - since it would be the third school year - of probationary employment. At the end of this third year, the employer may now decide whether to extend a permanent appointment to the employee, primarily on the basis of the employee having met the reasonable standards of competence and efficiency set by the employer. For the entire duration of this three-year period, the teacher remains under probation. Upon the expiration of his contract of employment, being simply on probation, he cannot automatically claim security of tenure and compel the employer to renew his employment contract.[24] It is when the yearly contract is renewed for the third time that Section 93 of the Manual becomes operative, and the teacher then is entitled to regular or permanent employment status. | |||||
|
2008-10-29 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Probationary employees enjoy security of tenure in the sense that during their probationary employment, they cannot be dismissed except for cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee.[36] However, upon expiration of their contract of employment, probationary employees cannot claim security of tenure and compel their employers to renew their employment contracts. In fact, the services of an employee hired on probationary basis may be terminated when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. There is nothing that would hinder the employer from extending a regular or permanent appointment to an employee once the employer finds that the employee is qualified for regular employment even before the expiration of the probationary period. Conversely, if the purpose sought by the employer is neither attained nor attainable within the said period, the law does not preclude the employer from terminating the probationary employment on justifiable ground.[37] | |||||