G.R. No. 172818 March 31, 2009
SPOUSES ALWYN ONG LIM and EVELYN LUKANG LIM, Petitioners, vs. LEGAZPI HOPE CHRISTIAN SCHOOL/ RAMON SIA/ OMEGA SIA/ HELEN SIA/ CECILIO K. PEDRO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, spouses Alwyn Ong Lim and Evelyn Lukang Lim, were hired in June 1999 by respondent Legazpi Hope Christian School. Alwyn taught Mathematics, Geometry, Algebra, and Trigonometry in the high school department, while Evelyn taught Chinese Language and Chinese Math in the elementary department. On April 4, 2002, respondent Helen Sia verbally informed petitioners of the termination of their employment without stating reasons. Petitioners filed complaints for illegal dismissal on April 5, 2002. On May 31, 2002, respondent Ramon Sia sent a letter stating that their three-year probation had expired and the school decided to discontinue their employment. Before the Labor Arbiter, respondents claimed petitioners were merely part-time teachers who did not acquire permanent status and could be dismissed without waiting for the probation period to lapse. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioners, ordering reinstatement and payment of back wages, 13th month pay, damages, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC reversed this decision, finding petitioners were part-time teachers who did not acquire permanent status, making their dismissal legal, but awarded proportionate 13th month and service incentive leave pays. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioner-spouses were illegally dismissed, which hinges on the determination of whether they were permanent teaching personnel entitled to security of tenure. This requires resolving whether they were part-time or full-time teachers under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. The Court held that petitioners were part-time teachers and, as such, did not acquire permanent status and were not illegally dismissed. The ruling was based on the following:
1. Definition of Full-Time vs. Part-Time: Citing Section 45 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, the Court outlined that full-time academic personnel must devote their total working day of not more than eight hours to the school, among other requirements. All teaching personnel not meeting these qualifications are considered part-time.
2. Petitioners’ Work Schedule: The records showed petitioner Evelyn’s work schedule was “7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.” (two hours) and Alwyn’s was “7:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon” (four hours). The Court found no evidence that their total working day was devoted to the school, failing to meet the requirement for full-time status.
3. Acquisition of Permanent Status: Following University of Sto. Tomas v. NLRC, the Court reiterated that for a private school teacher to acquire permanent status, the teacher must be (1) full-time, (2) have rendered three consecutive years of service, and (3) such service must be satisfactory. As part-time teachers, petitioners could not acquire permanent status.
4. Effect of School Guidelines: The Court considered the respondent school’s “TEACHERS’ GUIDELINES,” which stated that new teachers are on probation for three years and must submit a letter of re-application each school year. As part-time new teachers, their unwritten contracts were considered for one school year at a time. The school’s decision not to give them teaching assignments after the 2001-2002 school year did not constitute illegal dismissal.
5. Consequences: Since there was no illegal dismissal, the Court found no basis to order reinstatement, back wages, damages, or attorney’s fees. The award of proportionate 13th month and service incentive leave pays by the NLRC was sustained.