G.R. No. 182957; June 13, 2013
ST. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA FACULTY ASSOCIATION (SJA VFA)-FUR CHAPTER-TUCP, Petitioner, vs. ST. JOSEPH ACADEMY OF VALENZUELA and DAMASO D. LOPEZ, Respondents.

FACTS

The petitioner union filed a notice of strike against respondent school (SJAV) for illegal termination and union busting, affecting nineteen teachers. The Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) assumed jurisdiction. Four teachers were licensed and ordered reinstated with backwages. The remaining fifteen were non-licensees. The SOLE ordered the reinstatement of those non-licensees with valid temporary or special permits, with full backwages, but limited their service to the remaining validity period of their permits. The SOLE reasoned that as probationary employees, they enjoyed security of tenure and should have been given an opportunity to comply with the licensing requirement under R.A. No. 7836.
The Court of Appeals (CA) deleted the awards of reinstatement and backwages for the non-licensees. It ruled reinstatement was impossible as the Department of Education, Culture and Sports assigns para-teachers, and SJAV had the right to choose its teachers, with positions already filled. It deleted backwages because the SOLE itself found no illegal dismissal, as the non-licensees were not regular employees. The petitioner now seeks restoration of backwages and an award of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement on grounds of equity, admitting reinstatement is impossible due to expired permits.

ISSUE

Did the Court of Appeals commit a reversible error in deleting the award of backwages and reinstatement for the non-licensee teachers?

RULING

No, the CA did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision. The legal principle is that reinstatement and backwages are remedies available only in cases of illegal dismissal. For dismissal to be illegal, there must be a finding that the employee was dismissed without just or authorized cause and without due process. The SOLE’s own decision contained no such finding of illegal dismissal for the non-licensee teachers. Instead, it explicitly conditioned their reinstatement on possessing a valid permit, recognizing the statutory requirement under R.A. No. 7836 that one must be licensed to legally practice the teaching profession. Without a license or a valid permit, they had no legal right to continue holding their positions. Their separation from service was due to their failure to meet a statutory qualification, not an illegal act by the employer. Consequently, the fundamental premise for awarding reinstatement and backwages was absent. The Court also denied the plea for separation pay, as this benefit is due only to employees who are dismissed for authorized causes under Article 283 or 284 of the Labor Code, or in cases of illegal dismissal where reinstatement is not feasible. Since there was no illegal dismissal, separation pay was not warranted. The appeal to equity could not override these clear legal requirements.