GR 107234; (August, 1998) (Digest)

G.R. No. 107234 August 24, 1998
Alfredo Bongar, petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission and AMA Computer College, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Alfredo R. Bongar was employed as an instructor by respondent AMA Computer College (AMA). His employment contract, renewed several times, commenced on November 28, 1986, and ended on May 31, 1990, when AMA decided not to renew it upon its expiration on June 2, 1990. Petitioner claimed that after serving for more than three years—the probationary period for teachers under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools—he had acquired permanent employee status and was entitled to security of tenure. AMA contended that his separation was due to the expiration of his contract and that he was hired on a contractual basis. AMA also argued that petitioner could not be classified as a regular employee because his employment record showed he served as a full-time instructor for only two years, nine and a half months, short of the three-year full-time service required. AMA alternatively alleged that students lodged numerous complaints about petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal illegal and ordered AMA to pay separation pay and backwages but denied reinstatement. Both parties appealed to the NLRC, which affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s decision. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC erred in awarding separation pay in lieu of reinstatement to the illegally dismissed petitioner.

RULING

Yes, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition. The principal cause given for petitioner’s dismissal was the alleged expiration of his teaching contract. This was negated by the fact that he had rendered service for nearly four years. AMA’s contention that petitioner did not qualify as a regular employee for failing to complete three years of full-time service was unavailing, as adopting such a technical reasoning would allow schools to circumvent probationary employment rules by confining employment to a part-time basis. Since the dismissal was based on contract expiration, there was no basis to find strained relations between the parties. Furthermore, the allegation of student complaints was unsubstantiated, and petitioner was not afforded the due process requirements of notice and hearing, making his dismissal illegal. The general rule is that an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement and backwages. An exception allows separation pay in lieu of reinstatement only if reinstatement is no longer viable, such as in cases of strained employer-employee relationship or when the position no longer exists. In this case, no strained relationship was established. However, considering that petitioner was already in the twilight years of his employment during the prosecution of his claim, the Court, to prevent suspicion that the dismissal was a scheme to evade retirement benefits, held that petitioner was entitled not only to separation pay and full backwages but also to retirement benefits pursuant to any collective bargaining agreement or, in its absence, as provided in Section 14, Book VI of the Implementing Rules of the Labor Code. The challenged decisions were vacated, and a new one was rendered declaring the dismissal illegal and ordering private respondent to accord petitioner separation pay, full backwages, and retirement benefits.