Colegio del Santisimo Rosario vs. Rojo

A probationary teacher in the elementary or secondary level who has satisfactorily completed three consecutive school years attains regular employment status under Section 93 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, and where an employer fails to make known reasonable standards for qualification at the time of engagement, the teacher is deemed a regular employee entitled to the full protection of security of tenure.

Petitioner Colegio del Santisimo Rosario (CSR) is a private educational institution. Petitioner Sr. Zenaida S. Mofada, OP served as the school administrator. Respondent Emmanuel Rojo was engaged as a high school teacher and subsequently designated as Prefect of Discipline. During his employment, respondent uncovered a drug syndicate operating within the school and reduced drug-related incidents. Despite this contribution, petitioners decided not to renew his contract after his third school year, claiming his probationary contract had merely expired.

• Nature of Employment: Respondent was hired as a high school teacher on probationary basis for school years 1992-1993, 1993-1994, and 1994-1995.
• Non-Renewal Decision: On April 5, 1995, CSR through Mofada decided not to renew respondent's services for the school year 1995-1996.
• Illegal Dismissal Complaint: On July 13, 1995, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that under paragraph 75 of the 1970 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, he had acquired permanent status after three consecutive years of service.
• Petitioners' Defense: Petitioners argued that the Teacher's Contract for 1994-1995 expired on March 31, 1995, and that "three years" in the Manual meant 36 months of actual service, not three school years of 10 months each (totaling 30 months).
• Labor Arbiter Findings: The LA ruled that "three school years" means three years of 10 months each, not calendar years. It found respondent had attained regular status and that petitioners acted in bad faith by treating the termination as mere expiration of contract without presenting admissible proof of performance evaluation standards.
• NLRC Ruling: The NLRC affirmed with modification, ordering reinstatement with full backwages or separation pay if reinstatement was not feasible, holding that CSR failed to make known reasonable standards for qualification.
• Court of Appeals Ruling: The CA denied the petition for certiorari, applying the three-pronged test from Cagayan Capitol College: (1) full-time teacher, (2) three consecutive years of service, and (3) satisfactory service.

• Expiration vs. Dismissal: Petitioner argued that respondent was not dismissed but his probationary contract merely expired and was not renewed, and that a teacher does not automatically become regular upon completion of three years; rather, it requires the positive act of the school in hiring the teacher for the next school year.
• Interpretation of "Three Years": Petitioner maintained that "three years" in the Manual means 36 months of actual service, not three school years of 10 months each, and since respondent served only 30 months, he had not completed the probationary period.
• Distinction from Automatic Regularization: Petitioner cited Colegio San Agustin v. NLRC, claiming that a probationary teacher acquires permanent status only when allowed to work after the probationary period, and cited DOLE-DECS-CHED-TESDA Order No. 01, s. 1996 to support the position that regularization requires the employer's affirmative act of renewal after the probationary period.

• Automatic Regularization: Respondent countered that under Section 93 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, full-time teachers who have satisfactorily completed the probationary period shall be considered regular or permanent, and that completion of three consecutive school years automatically results in regularization.
• Deemed Regular Status: Respondent argued that absent reasonable standards communicated at the start of engagement, he should be deemed a regular employee under Article 281 of the Labor Code and Section 2(d) of the IRR.
• Bad Faith: Respondent maintained that petitioners acted in bad faith by terminating him without just cause and without due process, noting that no performance evaluation standards were ever made known to him and that his designation as Prefect of Discipline demonstrated satisfactory performance.

• Acquisition of Regular Status: Whether a basic education teacher hired for three consecutive school years as a probationary employee automatically becomes a permanent employee upon completion of the third year of probation.
• Due Process in Termination: Whether the employer complied with due process requirements in terminating a probationary employee where no reasonable standards were communicated at the time of engagement.

• Acquisition of Regular Status: A probationary teacher who has satisfactorily completed three consecutive school years attains regular employment status under Section 93 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, which mandates that full-time teachers who have served the probationary period shall be made regular or permanent.
• Effect of Absent Standards: Where an employer fails to communicate reasonable standards for qualification at the time of engagement, the probationary teacher is deemed a regular employee entitled to the full protection of security of tenure pursuant to Article 281 of the Labor Code and Book VI, Rule I, Section 2 of the IRR.
• Due Process Violation: The termination was procedurally defective because petitioners failed to serve the required written notice of termination based on failure to meet standards, violating the due process requirements under the Labor Code; moreover, no evidence was adduced to show the reasonable standards with which respondent's performance was to be assessed.

• Fixed-Term Contracts in Probationary Employment: When fixed-term employment overlaps with probationary status, Article 281 of the Labor Code assumes primacy and the fixed-period character of the contract must give way to the protective provisions governing probationary employment, unless the contract is specifically used for the fixed term it offers (e.g., replacement teachers or relievers contracted for a specific purpose).
• Deemed Regular Employee: An employee engaged on probationary basis shall be deemed a regular employee if no standards are made known to him at the time of his engagement.
• Due Process for Probationary Employees: Probationary employees are entitled to know the standards against which their performance is evaluated and to be informed of the reasons for their termination; the employer bears the burden of showing how these standards have been applied, and the specific details of any finding of just cause must be communicated to the employee as a matter of due process.

• "In a situation where the probationary status overlaps with a fixed-term contract not specifically used for the fixed term it offers, Article 281 should assume primacy and the fixed-period character of the contract must give way."
• "The use of the term satisfactorily necessarily connotes the requirement for schools to set reasonable standards to be followed by teachers on probationary employment. For how else can one determine if probationary teachers have satisfactorily completed the probationary period if standards therefor are not provided?"
• "As a matter of due process, teachers on probationary employment, just like all probationary employees, have the right to know whether they have met the standards against which their performance was evaluated. Should they fail, they also have the right to know the reasons therefor."

• Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc., G.R. No. 183572, April 13, 2010 — Controlling precedent establishing that fixed-term contracts during probationary periods are subject to Article 281 of the Labor Code, and that where the fixed-term is not specifically used for the term it offers, Article 281 assumes primacy over the fixed-term character.
• Magis Young Achievers' Learning Center v. Manalo, G.R. No. 178835, February 13, 2009 — Cited for the common practice of fixed-term contracts in the teaching profession and the explanation of how probationary employment continues through successive contract renewals until the third year.
• Cagayan Capitol College v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos. 90010-11, September 14, 1990 — Followed for the three-pronged test to determine acquisition of permanent employment status: (1) full-time teacher, (2) three consecutive years of service, and (3) satisfactory service.
• Tamson's Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 192881, November 16, 2011 — Cited for the rule that where no standards are made known to the employee at the time of engagement, he shall be deemed a regular employee.

• Section 92, 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools — Defines the probationary period for academic personnel in elementary and secondary levels as not more than three consecutive years of satisfactory service.
• Section 93, 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools — Mandates that full-time teachers who have satisfactorily completed the probationary period shall be considered regular or permanent.
• Article 281, Labor Code — Provides that probationary employment may be terminated only for just cause or failure to qualify under reasonable standards made known at the time of engagement, and that an employee allowed to work after the probationary period becomes a regular employee.
• Book VI, Rule I, Section 2(d), Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code — Requires written notice of termination in cases of probationary employment terminated due to failure to meet standards.

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Jose Portugal Perez, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe.