7/25/2019 UE vs Pepanio and Bueno

1/7

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 193897 January 23, 2013

UNIVERSITY O T!E E"ST, #E"N E$E"NOR J"VIER, RONNIE GI$$EGO an% #R.JOSE C. &ENE#ICTO, Petitioners,vs."N"$I'" . PEP"NIO an% M"RITI #. &UENO, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

"&"#, J.:

This case is about the e"plo#"ent status of colle$e teachers %ith no post$raduate de$rees %hohave been repeatedl# e&tended se"ester'to'se"ester appoint"ents as such.

The (acts and the !ase

In )**+, the Depart"ent of ducation, !ulture and Sports D !S- issued the Revised Manual ofRe$ulations for Private Schools, ) rticle I/, Section 00, para$raph ) a-, of %hich re1uirescolle$e facult# "e"bers to have a "aster2s de$ree as a "ini"u" educational 1ualification forac1uirin$ re$ular status. +

In )**0 petitioner 3niversit# of the ast 3 - and the 3 (acult# ssociation e&ecuted a five'#ear !ollective 4ar$ainin$ $ree"ent !4 - %ith effect up to )*** %hich provided, a"on$others, that 3 shall e&tend onl# se"ester'to'se"ester appoint"ents to colle$e facult# staffs %hodid not possess the "ini"u" 1ualifications. Those %ith such 1ualifications shall be $iven

probationar# appoint"ents and their perfor"ance on a full'ti"e or full'load basis shall berevie%ed for four se"esters .5

Meanti"e, on (ebruar# 6, )**7 several concerned $overn"ent a$encies issued D !S'!H D'T SD 'DO8 9oint Order ) 0 %hich reiterated the polic# e"bodied in the Manual ofRe$ulations that :teachin$ or acade"ic personnel %ho do not "eet the "ini"u" acade"ic

1ualifications shall not ac1uire tenure or re$ular status.: In consonance %ith this, the 3President issued a 3niversit# Polic# statin$ that, be$innin$ the School ;ear )**7')**6, it %ouldhire those %ho have no post$raduate units or "astera (. Pepanio in +??? ,7 bothon a se"ester'to'se"ester basis to teach in its colle$e. The# could not 1ualif# for probationar# or re$ular status because the# lac@ed post$raduate de$rees. 4ueno enrolled in si& post$raduate

1 | P a g e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt1

7/25/2019 UE vs Pepanio and Bueno

2/7

subAects at the Philippine Nor"al 3niversit#

7/25/2019 UE vs Pepanio and Bueno

3/7

4ueno and Pepanio 1uestioned the ti"eliness of the appeal to the N8R!. The# pointed to the post"aster

7/25/2019 UE vs Pepanio and Bueno

4/7

(or co"pleteness of service b# re$istered "ail, the rec@onin$ period starts either a- fro" thedate of actual receipt of the "ail b# the addressee or b- after five da#s fro" the date he receivedthe first notice fro" the post"aster .)0 There "ust be a conclusive proof, ho%ever, that there$istr# notice %as received b# or at least served on the addressee before the five'da# period

be$ins to run. )=

Here, the records fail to sho% that tt#. Mison in fact received the alle$ed re$istr# notice fro"the post office on March ++, +??= that re1uired hi" to clai" his "ail. Respondents have not

presented a cop# of the receipt evidencin$ that notice. The !ourt has no choice but to considerthe re$istr# return receipt bearin$ the date pril 0, +??= %hich sho%ed the date of tt#. Misonation is not necessar# %hen it is self'evident that thesi$nator# is in a position to verif# the truthfulness and correctness of the alle$ations in the

petition. Here the verification and certification %ere si$ned b# petitioner Dean 9avier %ho, basedon the $iven facts of the case, %as :in a position to verif# the truthfulness and correctness of thealle$ations in the petition.: )6

Three. Respondents ar$ue that 3 hired the" in )**6 and +???, %hen %hat %as in force %as the)**0 !4 bet%een 3 and the facult# union. Since that !4 did not #et re1uire a "aster

7/25/2019 UE vs Pepanio and Bueno

5/7

institutions to the Ministr# of ducation, !ulture and Sports no% Depart"ent of ducation-.ccordin$l#, in pro"ul$atin$ the Manual of Re$ulations, D !S %as e&ercisin$ its po%er of

re$ulation over educational institutions, %hich includes prescribin$ the "ini"u" acade"ic1ualifications for teachin$ personnel .+?

In )**0 the le$islature transferred the po%er to prescribe such 1ualifications to the !o""issionon Hi$her ducation !H D-. !H Ded it to set "ini"u" standards for pro$ra"s and institutions of hi$her learnin$. +) The Manual of Re$ulations continued to appl# tocolle$es and universities and suppletoril# the 9oint Order until +?)? %hen !H D issued aRevised Manual of Re$ulations %hich specificall# applies onl# to institutions involved in tertiar#education.

The re1uire"ent of a "asteral de$ree for tertiar# education teachers is not unreasonable. Theoperation of educational institutions involves public interest. The $overn"ent has a ri$ht toensure that onl# 1ualified persons, in possession of sufficient acade"ic @no%led$e and teachin$s@ills, are allo%ed to teach in such institutions. Bovern"ent re$ulation in this field of hu"an

activit# is desirable for protectin$, not onl# the students, but the public as %ell fro" ill'preparedteachers, %ho are lac@in$ in the re1uired scientific or technical @no%led$e. The# "a# bere1uired to ta@e an e&a"ination ++or to possess post$raduate de$rees as prere1uisite toe"plo#"ent.

Respondents %ere each $iven onl# se"ester'to'se"ester appoint"ents fro" the be$innin$ oftheir e"plo#"ent %ith 3 precisel# because the# lac@ed the re1uired "aster2s de$ree. It %asonl# %hen 3 and the facult# union si$ned their +??) !4 that the school e&tended petitionersa conditional probationar# status subAect to their obtainin$ a "aster2s de$ree %ithin their

probationar# period. It is clear, therefore, that the parties intended to subAect respondents2 per"anent status appoint"ents to the standards set b# the la% and the universit#.

Here, 3 $ave respondents 4ueno and Pepanio "ore than a"ple opportunities to ac1uire the post$raduate de$ree re1uired of the". 4ut the# did not ta@e advanta$e of such opportunities.9ustice, fairness, and due process de"and that an e"plo#er should not be penali>ed for situations%here it had little or no participation or control. +5

H R (OR , the !ourt BR NTS the petition and R V RS S the Decision of the !ourt ofppeals in ! 'B.R. SP *CC6+ dated 9ul# *, +?)? and R INST T S the Decision of the

National 8abor Relations !o""ission dated Septe"ber +6, +??7 as %ell as its Resolutions datedDece"ber +*, +??7 and (ebruar# +6, +??6 that dis"issed the co"plaints of respondents nali>a(. Pepanio and Mariti D. 4ueno.

SO ORD R D.

RO&ERTO ". "&"#ssociate 9ustice

!ON!3RE

5 | P a g e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#fnt23

7/25/2019 UE vs Pepanio and Bueno

6/7

PRES&ITERO J. VE$"SCO, JR.ssociate 9ustice!hairperson

#IOS#"#O M. PER"$T"

ssociate 9ustice

JOSE C"TR"$ MEN#O'"

ssociate 9ustice

M"RVIC M"RIO VICTOR . $EONENssociate 9ustice

T T S T T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before thecase %as assi$ned to the %riter of the opinion of the !ourt2s Division.

PRES&ITERO J. VE$"SCO, JR.

ssociate 9ustice!hairperson, Third Division

! R T I ( I ! T I O N

Pursuant to Section )5, rticle VIII of the !onstitution and the Division !hairperson2sttestation, I certif# that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation

before the case %as assi$ned to the %riter of the opinion of the !ourt2s Division.

M"RI" $OUR#ES P. ". SERENO!hief 9ustice

oo(no()*

) Issued as D !S Order *+, s. )**+, u$ust )?, )**+.

+ Section )?0. ffectivit#. This Manual of Re$ulations for Private Schools is hereb#approved and shall ta@e effect be$innin$ %ith the su""er session of )**5.

5 Records, Vol. I, p. )C+.

0 ! rollo, p. 77, D !S'!H D'T SD 'DO8 Order ), Series of )**7.

= Rollo, p. )0C.

7 Id. at )0*.

6 Section +, rticle VII.

6 | P a g e

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jan2013/gr_193897_2013.html#rnt7

7/25/2019 UE vs Pepanio and Bueno

7/7

C Records, Vol. I, p. +).

* Dated October )7 and October +?, +??5.

)? Rollo, p. 50C.

)) Id. at )0)')07.

)+ Id. at )06.

)5 Penned b# ssociate 9ustice lihu . ;baGe> %ith the concurrence of ssociate9ustices 4ienvenido 8. Re#es and stela M. Perlas'4ernabe no% Me"bers of the !ourt-,id. at 76'6*.

)0 +??= N8R! Rules of Procedure providesE

Section 6. Proof and !o"pleteness of Service. The return is pri"a facie proof of the facts indicated therein. Service b# re$istered "ail is co"plete upon receipt b#the addressee or his a$entF but if the addressee fails to clai" his "ail fro" the

post office %ithin five =- da#s fro" the date of first notice of the post"aster,service shall ta@e effect after such ti"e.

)= ntonio v. !ourt of ppeals, +0* Phil. )+5, )+* )*CC-.

)7 !a$a#an Valle# Dru$ !orporation v. !o""issioner of Internal Revenue, B. R . No.)=)0)5, (ebruar# )5, +??C, =0= S!R )?, )C')*.

)6

Id. at )*.)C 3niversit# of Santo To"as v. National 8abor Relations !o""ission, +7) Phil. 0C5,0C* )**?-.

)* 577 Phil. )77 )***-.

+? Section 5. The standards or criteria provided for in this Manual are the "ini"u"re1uired to $overn"ent reco$nition, and schools "a# adopt hi$her standards or criteriaconsistent %ith la%s, rules and re$ulations.

+)

Republic ct 66++, Sec. C d- and C o-.++ Professional Re$ulation !o""ission v. De Bu>"an, 067 Phil. =*7, 7)C +??0 -.

+5 St. 8u@e