G.R. No. 170388 ; September 4, 2013
COLEGIO DEL SANTISIMO ROSARIO AND SR. ZENAIDA S. MOFADA, OP, PETITIONERS, vs. EMMANUEL ROJO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Colegio del Santisimo Rosario (CSR) hired respondent Emmanuel Rojo as a probationary high school teacher for three consecutive school years (1992-1993, 1993-1994, and 1994-1995). On April 5, 1995, CSR, through Sr. Zenaida S. Mofada, OP, informed Rojo that his services would not be renewed for the following school year. Consequently, Rojo filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. He argued that under paragraph 75 of the 1970 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, a full-time teacher who has rendered three consecutive years of satisfactory service shall be considered permanent. Having completed three school years, he claimed to have attained permanent status.
Petitioners countered that Rojo’s probationary contract merely expired and was not renewed. They contended that the “three years” in the Manual meant 36 calendar months, not three school years of 10 months each. Thus, Rojo, having served only 30 months, had not completed the required period. They asserted his termination was due to the natural expiration of his fixed-term contract.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Emmanuel Rojo automatically attained permanent employment status upon completion of three consecutive school years as a probationary teacher, thereby making the non-renewal of his contract an illegal dismissal.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC, and Court of Appeals, declaring Rojo a regular employee who was illegally dismissed. The legal logic rests on the confluence of the 1970 Manual of Regulations and the Labor Code provisions on probationary employment.
First, the Court interpreted paragraph 75 of the 1970 Manual. It held that in the context of academic personnel, the term “years” logically refers to “school years,” not calendar years. A school year is the fundamental cycle of academic service. Therefore, Rojo’s completion of three consecutive school years satisfied the Manual’s requirement for permanency, assuming satisfactory service.
Second, and decisively, the Court applied Article 295 (formerly 281) of the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules. For probationary employment to be valid, the employer must make known to the employee the reasonable standards for regularization at the time of engagement. If no such standards are communicated, the employee is deemed regular from the start. The records showed that CSR failed to prove it had established and communicated such performance standards to Rojo at any point during his engagement. His Teacher’s Contract was generic, applying to all teachers without specifying probationary criteria or standards for regularization. Consequently, by operation of law, Rojo was deemed a regular employee. His dismissal, effected through the non-renewal of his contract without just or authorized cause and without due process, was therefore illegal. The award of reinstatement with full backwages or separation pay in lieu thereof was sustained.