[WITH RESOLUTION OF JULY 14, 1960]

Manalo versus Mapua Institute of Technology

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by the Mapua Institute of Technology against its former professor, Marcelino S. Manalo, arising from his dismissal before the opening of classes in June 1956. The case matters because it settles a question that recurs in every bar examination on labor and employment law: when a private college or university dismisses a teacher employed without a definite period, what law governs, and what is the consequence of a dismissal without just cause and without notice? The Supreme Court here answers that Republic Act Number 1052, as amended, supplies the rule, and that the remedy is not reinstatement but separation pay measured by the required period of notice.

Procedural History

Manalo sued the Mapua Institute of Technology in the Court of First Instance. The trial court found that he had been dismissed without any justifiable cause. It ordered the school to reinstate him to his position as professor, to pay him 6,000 pesos for every school year from the school year 1955 to 1956 until he should have been finally reinstated, to pay attorney's fees of 1,800 pesos, and to pay the costs. The school appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, finding that the real cause of the dismissal was Manalo's failure to convince his aunt to drop the charges she had filed against the school librarian, and that the dismissal was therefore without justifiable cause and without notice. The school then came to the Supreme Court on a petition to review the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

Facts

Marcelino S. Manalo was taken in as instructor in College Physics at the Mapua Institute of Technology on the first of August 1947, without any definite period and without any written contract of employment. He taught continuously until the school year 1955 to 1956, by which year his annual salary had reached 6,000 pesos. Before the opening of classes in June 1956, the registrar of the school, upon orders of the President, informed him that his services were no longer needed. He appealed to the school authorities to intercede for him, but to no avail, so he sought redress in court.

The Court of Appeals found that when Manalo noticed his name was not included in the list of faculty members in the school prospectus for the year 1956 to 1957, he approached Mr. Tomas Mapua, the school president, to find out the reason. Mr. Mapua called his attention to the charges brought against the school librarian, Mrs. Constancia de Jesus, by Manalo's aunt-in-law, Mrs. Esperanza Llanes-Santos, and intimated that Manalo should suggest to his aunt that she withdraw the charges. Manalo said he knew nothing about the charges but promised to take steps to comply. His mission was unsuccessful, and for this reason he was dropped from the faculty.

The school claimed a different reason: that it had lost confidence in him for having committed a serious breach of professional ethics, in that he furnished to the committee investigating the librarian a library card of a student that had come into his possession, a copy of the school prospectus, and the name of one of its employees who was later subpoenaed to testify. Manalo denied the charges. The Court of Appeals observed that school prospectuses are for distribution to the public, so furnishing a copy could not be a breach of professional ethics, and it concluded that the real cause of the dismissal was his failure to convince his aunt to drop the charges.

Issues

• Whether or not the dismissal of Manalo, even if made without just cause, constituted an unfair labor practice on the part of the school.
• Whether or not Republic Act Number 1052, as amended by Republic Act Number 1787, governs the dismissal of a professor of a private college or university employed without a definite period.
• Whether or not Manalo is entitled to reinstatement with back wages, or only to separation pay equivalent to the required period of notice.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Republic Act Number 1052, as amended by Republic Act Number 1787, provides:

In cases of employment, without a definite period, in a commercial, industrial, or agricultural establishment or enterprise, the employer or the employee may terminate at any time the employment with just cause; or without just cause in the case of an employee by serving written notice on the employer at least one month in advance or one-half month for every year of service of the employee, whichever is longer, a fraction of at least six months being considered as one whole year.

This is the provision the Court applies to measure the notice due to a teacher dismissed without just cause.

The same section further provides:

The employee, upon whom no such notice was served in case of termination of employment without just cause may hold the employer liable for damages.

This fixes the employer's liability where no notice of termination is served.

And finally:

The employee, upon whom no such notice was served in case of termination of employment without just cause shall be entitled to compensation from the date of termination of his employment in an amount equivalent to his salaries or wages corresponding to the required period of notice.

This is the measure of the separation pay the Court awards in lieu of reinstatement.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the act of the school in discharging Manalo, even if made without just cause, cannot be considered an unfair labor practice. Unfair labor practices on the part of employers are defined in Section 4 (a) of Republic Act Number 875 and refer particularly to interference with, restraint or coercion of employees in the exercise of the right to organize into labor organizations, to discrimination in regard to hire or tenure of employment, and to discouragement of membership in labor organizations. The Court expressly left open whether a college or university is an industry falling under the Industrial Peace Act.

On the second issue, the Court held that Republic Act Number 1052, as amended, applies. It reasoned that no tenure or permanency of office can be claimed on behalf of professors or teachers of private schools, colleges or universities, because their employment is not an official or governmental one and must be subject to the ordinary rules of contract. The Civil Code contains no provision governing the relative rights of a teacher and the school that wants to dispense with his services, and the old provision of the Code of Commerce granting a dismissed employee one month's salary, known as the mesada, was repealed by the Civil Code, so Congress filled the void with Republic Act Number 1052. The Court added that contracts between private schools and teachers are governed, in general, by the rules applicable to other contracts of employment, and that the school is not a non-profit institution, so the element of gain may have been at least a secondary purpose. It also noted that the school itself invoked the statute in its favor.

On the third issue, the Court held that reinstatement with back wages was improper. It rejected reliance on the Micaller case, whose principle it had already revoked in the Gutierrez and Monteverde cases, where it held that even without cause for separation the employer may separate the employee under Republic Act Number 1052, since as long as the required notice is given the relation may be terminated, and payment of an amount equivalent to one month's salary in lieu of notice complies with the requirement. Accordingly, Manalo was considered separated from the service and entitled to separation pay equivalent to his salaries for the required period of notice.

Doctrine

A professor or teacher in a private school, college or university holds no tenure or permanency of office; his employment is not an official or governmental one and is governed by the ordinary rules of contract. In the absence of a special law and of a specific contract as to the period of employment, Republic Act Number 1052, as amended, governs the dismissal of such a teacher employed without a definite period. A dismissal without just cause is not, by itself, an unfair labor practice; unfair labor practice requires the acts defined in Section 4 (a) of Republic Act Number 875. Where employment without a definite period is terminated without just cause and without the required notice, the employee is entitled to compensation equivalent to his salaries for the required period of notice, not to reinstatement with back wages.

Disposition

The Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, declared Manalo legally separated from the service, and, as modified in its resolution of July 1960, ordered the school to pay him one month's pay of 500 pesos, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a private school teacher has no tenure, so Republic Act Number 1052 governs, and the remedy for dismissal without just cause and without notice is separation pay measured by the notice period, not reinstatement. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between a dismissal without just cause and an unfair labor practice, and to test the rule that the mesada, not reinstatement, is the remedy for employment without a definite period.