Cases Involving Teachers
Public School Teachers Public school teachers from various schools in Metro Manila who were simultaneously charged, preventively suspended, and eventually dismissed in October 1990 by then Secretary Isidro D. Cariñio of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), in decisions issued by him which uniformly read - - -
This is a complaint filed by the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports against the following public school teachers x x x x based on the report submitted by their respective school principals wherein it was alleged that the named teachers participated in the mass action/illegal strike on Sept. 19-21, 1990 and subsequently defied the return-to-work order dated September 17, 1990 issued by this Office, which acts constitute grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, gross violation of Civil Service Law, Rules and Regulations and reasonable office regulations, refusal to perform official duty, gross insubordination, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and absence without official leave (AWOL), in violation of Presidential Decree 807, otherwise known as the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines. Required to explain within a period of not less than 72 hours but not more than 5 days from receipt of the complaint, the teachers failed to submit the required answer within the given time .., which failure, is considered a waiver on their part of their right to answer the charges and to controvert the same. (De la Cruz vs. CA: G.R. No. 126183: March 25, 1999, BELLOSILLO, J.: En Banc) Full-Time Teachers on Leave of Absence On 8 June 1992, when Ms. Belo, a full-time teacher of Chiang Kai Shek College (CKSC) since 1977, applied for a leave of absence for the school year 1992-1993 because her children of tender age had no yaya to take care of them. The then principal, Mrs. Joan Sy Cotio, approved her application. However, on 15 June 1992, Ms. Belo received a letter dated 9 June 1992 of Mr. Chien Yin Shao, President of CKSC, informing her of the school’s existing policy; thus: Regarding your letter of request for leave of absence dated June 8, 1992, we would like to inform you of the existing policy of our school: (1) We could not assure you of any teaching load should you decide to return in the future. (2) Only teachers in service may enjoy the privilege and benefits provided by our school. Hence, your children are no longer entitled to free tuition starting school year 1992-1993. Ms. Belo, nonetheless, took her leave of absence. On 8 July 1992, she learned that Laurence, one of her three children studying at the CKSC, was sent out of the examination room because his tuition fees were not paid. This embarrassing incident impelled Ms. Belo to pay, allegedly under protest, all the school fees of her children. In May 1993, after her one-year leave of absence, Ms. Belo presented herself to Ms. Cotio and signified her readiness to teach for the incoming school year 1993-1994. She was, however, denied and not accepted by Ms. Cotio. .. (HIANG KAI SHEK COLLEGE vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 152988. August 24, 2004, DAVIDE, JR., C.J.) Diminution of Teachers' Salaries Davao Merchant Marine Academy (DMMA) DMMA is a private educational institution in Davao City. In June 1994, it hired Alma E. Garcia to teach certain courses for the first semester of school year 1994-1995. About a month after classes began, Garcia signed a contract designating her as a “contractual” employee with an academic load of 21 hours a week and stipulating that her employment was for a definite term, “from June 1, 1994 up to and including October 31, 1994.”Her contract was renewed for the second semester of the same school year. The term of this new contract was from November 24, 1994 to March 31, 1995 and her weekly teaching load was increased to 30.75 hours. For the first semester of school year 1995-1996, she entered into a third contract of employment with the school. She was given a weekly teaching load of 31.5 hours a week and a higher salary rate. Under this third contract, Garcia’s employment was from June 1 to October 31, 1995. Sometime in the first week of June 1995, DMMA called a faculty meeting during which it presented for the faculty’s approval a new formula for computing the teachers’ salaries. On DMMA’s assurance that the new formula would result in higher pay for the teachers, a majority of the faculty voted to approve it. Garcia, to whom the formula did not make sense, abstained from voting. Contrary to what DMMA had led the faculty to believe, the new formula actually caused a diminution of the teachers’ salaries. Garcia took it upon herself to ask the school administration for an explanation but all she got was a copy of excerpts from the minutes of a meeting of DMMA’s Board of Trustees held on October 11, 1995. It stated that “[t]he Board decided that there should be no changes in the formula for salary computation as of now because this was voted upon by the majority of the Faculty Members making this binding and legal.” Not satisfied, she wrote a letter to DMMA’s Board of Trustees on October 12, 1995. She reiterated her request for an explanation and opined that the school might have inadvertently violated labor laws since the new formula actually diminished the teachers’ salaries. On October 19, 1995, Garcia was summoned to the Office of the Executive Assistant to the President and confronted about her letter. She was told that DMMA was no longer comfortable working with her and that her employment would end on October 31, 1995. She did not foresee such an abrupt and unexpected end to her teaching career at DMMA. She wanted her employment to continue considering that, prior to her letter, the school administration had already posted the schedule of classes for the second semester, including those she would be handling. She had also been verbally notified by DMMA’s chairman of academic affairs that she would be teaching night classes in the next semester. Hence, she filed a complaint against DMMA (DAVAO MERCHANT MARINE academy vs COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 144075, April 19, 2006, PUNO, J.) Dismissal of Teacher A married man, was employed as a teacher by the private respondent Hagonoy Institute Inc. from June 1980 until his dismissal on June 1, 1991. Likewise working as a teacher for the private respondent was Mrs. Arlene T. Martin, also married. In the course of their employment, the couple fell in love. Thereafter, rumors regarding the couple’s relationship spread, especially among the faculty members and school officials. (SANTOS vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, G.R. No.115795. March 6, 1998,ROMERO, J.) |
Responsibilities of the Teachers
|