THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 202140. April 23, 2014.]
ELMER DEL ROSARIO AND ROOSEVELT COLLEGE SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL, petitioners, vs. TERESITA ORTINERO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated April 23, 2014, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 202140 (Elmer Del Rosario and Roosevelt College Science High School v. Teresita Ortinero). — In her complaint for illegal dismissal, respondent Teresita Ortinero claims that petitioner Roosevelt College Science High School (the school) hired her as full-time teacher on June 15, 2002. She taught Philippine History, Asian Perspectives, Science, Technology and Society, World History, and Economics to high school students from School Year (SY) 2002-2003 to SY 2006-2007. During this time, Ortinero did not join the faculty union that had a close-shop agreement with the school. She claims that this was the result of the union's failure to demand that she join it. 1 When she asked for her 2007-2008 teaching load, the school told her that she had been placed on inactive status, which meant that she had no teaching assignment for that SY.
Petitioner school claims, on the other hand, that the Roosevelt College System (RCS), of which it was a part, had a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the University of the Philippines (UP) whereby the latter undertook to assist the school in developing its curriculum and train its faculty. Ortinero, a UP teacher who would not otherwise have been allowed to teach outside UP, had an arrangement to teach at Roosevelt College Science High School pursuant to the MOA. When the MOA expired, Ortinero stayed on in the school in a non-official capacity.
Petitioner school further claims that as mere part-time instructor/lecturer, Ortinero did not draw a monthly salary like other teachers and was paid by the hour. She did not enjoy a permanent status. In June 2007, the school ceased giving her any teaching load upon a finding that she had been frequently unprepared for class, relying on pure student-reporting with no intervention or discussion during or after the report. Further, her grade computations were questionable, she reported late for class, did not finish the course syllabi, and preached her religion during class hours. DEICaA
On January 29, 2009 the Labor Arbiter found that Ortinero had gained permanent status and petitioner school illegally dismissed her, entitling her to full backwages and benefits and separation pay of one month's wage for every year of service, both computed from June 30, 2002 when she began working for the school up to the date of the finality of the decision. In addition the Labor Arbiter granted her 13th month pay for three years, moral and exemplary damages of P15,000.00, and attorney's fees of P30,000.00. 2
On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) issued a Resolution on July 21, 2009, 3 dismissing the appeal. But on September 30, 2009, acting on the school's motion for reconsideration, the NLRC rendered a Decision vacating that resolution, reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter, and dismissing Ortinero's complaint for lack of merit. 4
On petition before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 113099, the latter court rendered a Decision on October 4, 2011, reversing and setting aside the NLRC Decision dated September 30, 2009 and ordering petitioner school to reinstate Ortinero to her former position without loss of seniority rights and with payment of backwages from the time of termination up to the time of actual reinstatement. The CA also awarded her attorney's fees equivalent to then 10% of the total monetary award in her favor. On June 4, 2012 the CA denied the school's motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner school insists that Ortinero could not be hired as a permanent teacher since she did not join the union that had a close-shop agreement with the school. Further, she had always worked as a part-time teacher/lecturer. A full-time teacher has a minimum load of 25 hours per week; whereas, she had taught for only 8 hours a week at the start, which was later increased to 12 hours, 16 hours, and 17 hours a week in her last school year. Based on the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, she was not a full-time teacher and, therefore, could not acquire the status of a permanent employee.
This Court agrees, however, with the CA's ruling that it was not fair to divest Ortinero of a full-time status because of the school's close-shop agreement with the faculty union since the latter had not demanded that she join it. For this reason, she was not bound by the renegotiated provisions of the 8th Collective Bargaining Agreement that took effect in the SY 2007-2012 which required each of the school's regular teachers to have a load of 25 hours a week or 100 hours a month. As found by the CA, for a teacher to acquire permanent status, she needed only to show (1) that she is a full-time teacher; (2) that she has rendered three consecutive years of service; and (3) that such service has been satisfactory. 5 Nothing in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools implies that only those paid by the month can attain the status of a full-time teacher. Indeed, its Section 45 provides that regular teachers could be paid monthly or by the hour like Ortinero. TacSAE
Petitioner school of course claims that it ceased to give respondent Ortinero teaching loads because she had also been an inefficient teacher. But the Court agrees with CA that it was incumbent upon the school to prove its charge against her. But it failed to do so. Consequently, she is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time her compensation was withheld from her up to the time of her actual reinstatement 6 plus attorney's fees of 10% of the total monetary award since she was compelled to litigate in order to seek redress. The Court agrees with CA, however, that it was error to grant her moral and exemplary damages for lack of evidence to support these claims. The Court finds Ortinero entitled to attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total monetary reward since she had been compelled to litigate in order to seek redress. 7
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMSin toto the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 113099 dated October 4, 2011 and its Resolution dated June 4, 2012.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 121.
2. Id. at 126-127.
3. Id. at 217-235.
4. Id. at 260-274.
5. University of Sto. Tomas v. National Labor Relations Commission, 261 Phil. 483, 489 (1990).
6. The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 377, 395.
7. Macasero v. Southern Industrial Gases Philippines, G.R. No. 178524, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 500, 507.