G.R. No. 224319 November 20, 2017
DE LA SALLE ARANETA UNIVERSITY, INC., Petitioner vs. DR. ELOISA G. MAGDURULANG, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Dr. Eloisa G. Magdurulang was initially hired by petitioner De La Salle Araneta University as a part-time faculty member in 2007. She was later appointed as a full-time faculty member and BSBA Program Coordinator for School Years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. During her 2009-2010 contract, the Acting Assistant Dean recommended her for permanent status, which the University President initially approved but later rescinded. Instead, she was issued a reappointment for SY 2010-2011 on a contractual basis with a reclassified, lower rank. Respondent sought clarification on this demotion and the denial of permanent status.
Despite her reappointment for SY 2010-2011, respondent was not given any teaching load, and her administrative position was discontinued. She filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, arguing she had attained regular status after three years of service and that the university’s act of shortening her probation via the recommendation effectively made her a regular employee. The university defended that her fixed-term contracts were voluntarily accepted and that she had not completed the six consecutive semesters of probation required by the Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education (MORPHE) and its own handbook.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether respondent was constructively dismissed and had attained regular employment status despite not completing the statutory probationary period.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that respondent was NOT constructively dismissed and had NOT attained regular status. The legal logic hinges on the application of the MORPHE, which governs academic personnel in private higher education institutions. Under Section 117 of the MORPHE, a probationary academic employee must complete six consecutive semesters of satisfactory service before becoming eligible for permanent appointment. The Court emphasized that this provision is a substantive rule that defines the probationary period, and it cannot be shortened by a mere unilateral recommendation from a school official.
The initial approval by the University President was not a final, official act conferring permanent status. The university ultimately adhered to the clear mandate of the MORPHE. Since respondent had not completed the required six consecutive semesters as a full-time faculty member (her service included part-time work which does not count toward the probationary period), she remained a probationary employee on fixed-term contracts. The non-renewal of her contract upon its expiry was a management prerogative. The alleged demotion in rank and the non-assignment of a teaching load for the new contract period did not constitute constructive dismissal, as her fixed-term employment had ended, and the new contract offered different terms which she contested. The failure to renew a probationary contract, after the expiry of its fixed term, is not dismissal but the termination of a contractual relationship.