This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-09-04 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Such employment for fixed terms during the teachers' probationary period is an accepted practice in the teaching profession. In Magis Young Achievers' Learning Center v. Manalo,[34] we noted that: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. 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. (Emphases supplied) | |||||
|
2011-06-01 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| [15] G.R. No. 178835, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 421. | |||||
|
2011-04-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| [15] G.R. No. 178835, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 421. | |||||