GR L 14885; (May, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-14885; May 31, 1960
MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, petitioner, vs. MARCELINO S. MANALO, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Marcelino S. Manalo was employed as an instructor in College Physics by petitioner Mapua Institute of Technology on August 1, 1947, without a definite period and without a written contract. He taught continuously until the school year 1955-1956, receiving an annual salary of P6,000. Before the opening of classes in June 1956, the school registrar, upon orders of the President, informed him his services were no longer needed. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals found that the real cause for his dismissal was his failure to convince his aunt-in-law to withdraw charges she had filed against the school librarian, as requested by the school president. The courts below found the dismissal was without justifiable cause and without notice, and ordered his reinstatement with back wages and attorney’s fees.
ISSUE
Whether the dismissal of respondent, a professor in a private educational institution employed without a definite period and without just cause, is governed by Republic Act No. 1052 (as amended by Republic Act No. 1787 ), which requires notice or payment in lieu thereof, rather than warranting reinstatement.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the employment contract between a private school and a teacher, in the absence of a specific period, is governed by the ordinary rules of contract. Since no special law governs the dismissal of professors from private colleges and universities, and the Civil Code contains no specific provision on the matter, the provisions of Republic Act No. 1052 , as amended, should apply by analogy. The Court found that the petitioner’s act of dismissal did not constitute unfair labor practice under the Industrial Peace Act ( Republic Act No. 875 ), as the dismissal was not related to the employee’s right to organize. Consequently, the remedy for dismissal without just cause and without the required notice is not reinstatement but the payment of separation pay equivalent to the salary for the required notice period. Upon reconsideration, the Court modified its ruling, applying Republic Act No. 1052 prior to its amendment (as the dismissal occurred in April 1956), and held the respondent was legally separated from service and entitled only to one month’s pay (P500) in lieu of notice.