Second of four parts
They pointed out that St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove (SSCW) is a Catholic educational institution, which caters exclusively to young girls; that SSCW would lose its credibility if it would maintain employees who do not live up to the values and teachings it inculcates to its students. SSCW further asserted that the petitioner, being an employee of a Catholic educational institution, should have strived to maintain the honor, dignity and reputation of SSCW as a Catholic school.
The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint filed by Ms. Leus and found that there was a valid ground for the dismissal. Leus appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), insisting that there was no valid ground for the termination of her employment. On February 28, 2007, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision dated February 28, 2006, and said that SSCW had a valid reason to terminate Leus’s employment. Leus sought reconsideration but it was denied by the NLRC.
Unperturbed, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in ruling that there was a valid ground for her dismissal. On September 24, 2008, the CA denied the petition for certiorari filed by Leus. The CA held that it is the provisions of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (MRPS) and not the Labor Code which govern the termination of employment of teaching and nonteaching personnel of private schools and that the petitioner’s dismissal was a valid exercise of SSCW’s management prerogative to discipline and impose penalties on erring employees pursuant to its policies, rules and regulations. Part of the CA resolution stated that, “[P]etitioner’s [referring to Leus] pregnancy prior to marriage is scandalous in itself given the work environment and social milieu she was in. Respondent school for young ladies precisely seeks to prevent its students from situations like this, inculcating in them strict moral values and standards. Being part of the institution, petitioner’s private and public life could not be separated. Her admitted premarital sexual relations was a violation of private respondent’s prescribed standards of conduct that views premarital sex as immoral because sex between a man and a woman must only take place within the bounds of marriage.” Leus moved for reconsideration but was denied by the CA.
Leus then went to the Supreme Court (SC) and the ruling (which are almost copied completely or paraphrased from the SC decision) are as follows.
With respect to the applicability of the 1992 MRPS (though the latest Department of Eduction issuance is DepEd Order [DO] 24, Series of 2011, amending DO 88, Series of 2010-Revised Manual of Regulation for Private Schools in Basic Education) versus the Labor Code, the SC ruled that the 1992 MRPS, the regulation in force at the time of the instant controversy, was issued by the secretary of education pursuant to Batas Pambansa (BP) 232 (please see now Republic Act 9155, also known as the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2011). Section 7029 of BP 232 vests the secretary of education with the authority to issue rules and regulations to implement the provisions of BP 232. Concomitantly, Section 5730 specifically empowers the DepEd to promulgate rules and regulations necessary for the administration, supervision and regulation of the educational system in accordance with the declared policy of BP 232. The qualifications of teaching and nonteaching personnel of private schools, as well as the causes for the termination of their employment, are an integral aspect of the educational system of private schools. Indubitably, ensuring that the teaching and nonteaching personnel of private schools are not only qualified, but competent and efficient as well, goes hand in hand with the declared objective of BP 232—establishing and maintaining relevant quality education. It is thus within the authority of the secretary of education to issue a rule, which provides for the dismissal of teaching and nonteaching personnel of private schools based on their incompetence, inefficiency or some other disqualification.
Moreover, Section 69 of BP 232 specifically authorizes the secretary ofeducation to “prescribe and impose such administrative sanction as he may deem reasonable and appropriate in the implementing rules and regulations” for the “[g]ross inefficiency of the teaching or nonteaching personnel” of private schools. Accordingly, contrary to the petitioner’s claim, the Court sees no reason to invalidate the provisions of the 1992 MRPS, specifically Section 94 thereof.
With respect to the validity of Leus’s dismissal, the SC ruled that the validity of the dismissal hinges on the determination of whether pregnancy out of wedlock by an employee of a Catholic educational institution is a cause for the termination of her employment. In resolving the foregoing question, the SC said that it assessed the matter from a strictly neutral and secular point of view—the relationship between SSCW as employer and the petitioner as an employee, the causes provided for by law in the termination of such relationship, and the evidence on record. The ground cited for the petitioner’s dismissal, i.e., premarital sexual relations and, consequently, pregnancy out of wedlock, was assessed as to whether the same constitutes a valid ground for dismissal pursuant to Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS.
This column should not be taken as a legal advice applicable to any case, as each case is unique and should be construed in light of the attending circumstances surrounding such particular case.
Lawyer Toni Umali is the current assistant secretary for Legal and Legislative Affairs of the Department of Education (DepEd). He is licensed to practice law not only in the Philippines, but also in the state of California and some federal courts in the US after passing the California State Bar Examinations in 2004. He has served as a legal consultant to several legislators and local chief executives. As education assistant secretary, he was instrumental in the passage of the K to 12 law and the issuance of its implementing rules and regulations. He is also the alternate spokesman of the DepEd. To be continued
1 comment
Looking forward to the conclusion, Asec. Umali. Thanks as always for the informative articles.