CHIANG KAI SHEK COLLEGE, AND CHIEN YIN SHAO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS; HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION; HON. COMMISSIONER VICTORIANO R. CALAYLAY, HON. PRE…

Chiang Kai Shek College versus Belo

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Chiang Kai Shek College and its president, Chien Yin Shao, against a decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals had affirmed a ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission declaring that Diana P. Belo, a teacher of the college since 1977, was illegally dismissed when the school refused to give her a teaching load after she returned from a one-year leave of absence. This case matters because it clarifies the scope of a private school's management prerogative against the constitutional right of a permanent teacher to security of tenure, and it illustrates what constitutes constructive dismissal in the educational setting.

Procedural History

Ms. Belo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbitration Office. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, ruling that Ms. Belo was not dismissed but that there was simply no available teaching load for her. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission reversed the Labor Arbiter and found that Ms. Belo was constructively dismissed, ordering her reinstatement with full back wages. The petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the National Labor Relations Commission ruling. After the Court of Appeals denied their motion for reconsideration, the petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

In June 1992, Ms. Belo, a permanent teacher of Chiang Kai Shek College since 1977, applied for a leave of absence for the school year 1992 to 1993 because her young children had no yaya to care for them. The principal approved her application. However, Ms. Belo then received a letter from the school president informing her of an existing school policy: the school could not assure her of any teaching load should she decide to return, and only teachers in service could enjoy school privileges, meaning her children were no longer entitled to free tuition starting that school year.

Ms. Belo took her leave anyway. In July 1992, one of her children was sent out of an examination room because tuition fees were unpaid, prompting Ms. Belo to pay all school fees under protest. In May 1993, after her one-year leave, Ms. Belo reported to the principal and signified her readiness to teach for the incoming school year. She was denied. The school president later informed her that her confirmation to teach was filed late and that no teaching load was available because the school had already hired non-permanent teachers in April of that year.

The school's written statement of policies dated March 1992 did not contain the policy on non-assurance of teaching loads or the policy limiting benefits to teachers in service. These policies only appeared in the school's written statement of policies dated March 1993, which was issued after Ms. Belo had already taken her leave.

Issues

• Whether or not Ms. Belo was constructively dismissed when the school refused to give her a teaching load upon her return from leave of absence.
• Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission gravely abused its discretion in reversing the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter.
• Whether or not Ms. Belo's statement that she was appealing on a pure question of law precluded the National Labor Relations Commission from reviewing factual issues.

Applicable Provisions

The Court applied the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure, anchored on the due process clause. The Constitution provides:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

This provision underlies the principle that no worker shall be dismissed except for just and authorized cause provided by law and after due notice and hearing.

The Court also invoked the constitutional requirement for decisions of courts to state the facts and the law. The Constitution provides:

No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the laws on which it is based.

This provision bears on the petitioners' claim that the National Labor Relations Commission decision failed to specify the evidence supporting its finding of constructive dismissal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that Ms. Belo was constructively dismissed. The Court defined constructive dismissal as a cessation from work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, or when there is a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay, or when clear discrimination by the employer becomes unbearable to the employee. The Court found that the school's policies, as applied to Ms. Belo, constituted clear discrimination. The policy limiting free tuition benefits to teachers in service was not in the school's written policies of March 1992 but only appeared in the written policies of March 1993. When the school applied this future policy retroactively to Ms. Belo's children, it effectively treated her as already not in service, which was a clear act of discrimination.

The Court likewise found that the policy of non-assurance of a teaching load was non-existent at the time Ms. Belo took her leave, since it was not in the written policies of March 1992. Even if it existed as a matter of practice, it contradicted the school's written policies of March 1993, which provided that permanent teachers who wished to resign, retire, or take a leave of absence must file written applications, and that failure to file an application would be construed as consent to teach for the succeeding school year. The Court stated:

When respondent Belo reported for work after the termination of her one-year leave of absence, it was obligatory for petitioner school to give her a teaching load. It was improper for petitioner school to farm out subjects of respondent Belo to provisionary teachers. The petitioner school should have assumed that respondent Belo was returning for work after the expiration of her leave.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court noted that this case was an exception to the general rule that factual findings of the Labor Arbiter are accorded weight and finality, because the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission and the Labor Arbiter were contrary to each other, allowing the reviewing court to examine the records for itself.

On the third issue, the Court ruled that Ms. Belo's statement that she was appealing on a pure question of law did not bar review of factual issues. The Court examined her Notice of Appeal and found that she actually appealed on a pure question of law and for being contrary to law and jurisprudence applicable to the case and the evidence on record, and rendered with grave abuse of discretion. The Court also noted the petitioners' own admission that to prove grave abuse of discretion, it is necessary to bring out questions of fact.

Doctrine

• A permanent private school teacher who has rendered three consecutive years of satisfactory service enjoys security of tenure and may not be dismissed except for just and authorized cause after due notice and hearing.
• Constructive dismissal exists when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely, or when there is a demotion in rank, a diminution in pay, or clear discrimination by the employer that becomes unbearable to the employee.
• School policies must be adequately known to employees and uniformly implemented to the body of employees as a whole, not in isolation. Applying a future policy retroactively to a single employee constitutes clear discrimination.
• When the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission are contrary to each other, the reviewing court may examine the records and pass upon the questioned findings.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the National Labor Relations Commission ruling that Ms. Belo was illegally dismissed and entitled to reinstatement and back wages, with costs against the petitioners.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a school cannot apply a newly written policy retroactively to deny a returning permanent teacher her teaching load, for that is constructive dismissal violating security of tenure. Examiners like to use this case to test the interplay between management prerogative and the security of tenure of permanent employees, and to test whether a teacher on approved leave must be presumed returning to work after the leave expires.