University of the East vs. Pepanio

A college teacher who lacks the minimum academic qualification required by the Manual of Regulations and CHED rules does not attain regular or permanent status despite repeated semester-to-semester or probationary appointments; the school’s CBA is read together with those regulations, which form part of the CBA without need for express reference.

The University of the East (UE) is a private educational institution; respondents Analiza F. Pepanio and Mariti D. Bueno were college teachers it engaged. The DECS Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, issued in 1992, required college faculty members to have a master’s degree as the minimum educational qualification for acquiring regular status, and the 1996 DECS-CHED-TESDA-DOLE Joint Order reiterated that teaching or academic personnel who did not meet the minimum academic qualifications would not acquire tenure or regular status. UE’s collective bargaining agreements with its faculty association, including the 1994 and 2001 agreements, governed appointments and probationary status in light of those regulations.

In 1992, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) issued the Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, Article IX, Section 44, paragraph 1(a), requiring college faculty members to have a master’s degree as the minimum educational qualification for acquiring regular status. In 1994, petitioner University of the East (UE) and the UE Faculty Association executed a five-year Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective up to 1999, which provided that UE would extend only semester-to-semester appointments to college faculty who did not possess the minimum qualifications; those with such qualifications would receive probationary appointments, and their performance on a full-time or full-load basis would be reviewed for four semesters. On February 7, 1996, several government agencies issued DECS-CHED-TESDA-DOLE Joint Order 1, reiterating that teaching or academic personnel who did not meet the minimum academic qualifications would not acquire tenure or regular status. In line with this, the UE President issued a University Policy stating that, beginning School Year 1996-1997, UE would hire those without postgraduate units or a master’s degree for its college teaching staff, in the absence of qualified applicants, only on a semester-to-semester basis.

UE hired respondent Mariti D. Bueno in 1997 and respondent Analiza F. Pepanio in 2000, both on a semester-to-semester basis to teach in its college. They could not qualify for probationary or regular status because they lacked postgraduate degrees. Bueno enrolled in six postgraduate subjects at the Philippine Normal University’s graduate school, but there is no evidence that she finished her course. Pepanio earned 27 units in graduate studies at the Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, but these could no longer be credited to her because she failed to continue her studies within five years.

In 2001, UE and the UE Faculty Association entered into a new CBA that would have the school extend probationary full-time appointments to full-time faculty members who did not yet have the required postgraduate degrees, provided that they comply with the requirement within their probationary period. The CBA granted UE the option to replace these appointees during their probationary period if a qualified teacher became available at the end of the semester. Pursuant to the new CBA, UE extended probationary appointments to Bueno and Pepanio. Two years later, in October 2003, the Dean of the UE College of Arts and Sciences, petitioner Eleanor Javier, sent notices to probationary faculty members reminding them of the expiration of the probationary status of those lacking postgraduate qualification by the end of the first semester of School Year 2003-2004. Pepanio replied that she was enrolled at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines Graduate School. Bueno replied that she was not interested in acquiring tenure because she was returning to her province. Dean Javier subsequently issued a memorandum stating that she would recommend the extension of the probationary appointees for two more semesters for those who wanted it, based on the wishes of the University President. Pepanio requested a three-semester extension, but Dean Javier denied this request and directed Pepanio to ask for only a two-semester extension. The records do not show whether Bueno submitted a request for extension. At any rate, the school eventually wrote the respondents extending their probationary period, but neither Pepanio nor Bueno reported for work.

Bueno later wrote UE demanding that it consider her a regular employee based on her six-and-a-half-year service on a full-load basis, given that UE hired her in 1997 when the 1994 CBA was still in force. Pepanio made the same demand, citing her three-and-a-half years of service on a full-load basis. When UE did not heed their demands, the respondents filed cases of illegal dismissal against the school before the Labor Arbiter’s office. For its defense, UE countered that it never regarded the respondents as regular employees since they did not hold the required master’s degree that government rules required as the minimum educational qualification for their kind of work.

The Labor Arbiter found that Bueno and Pepanio had taught at UE for at least four semesters under the old CBA, while UE maintained that it never regarded them as regular employees because they did not hold the required master’s degree.

• Timeliness of Appeal: Petitioner UE contended that the 10-day period for appeal to the NLRC should be counted from April 4, 2005, the date appearing on the registry return receipt of the mail addressed to its counsel, not from March 22, 2005.
• Employment Status: Petitioner maintained that respondents were never regular employees because they did not hold the required master’s degree, the minimum educational qualification under government rules; the non-renewal of their contracts was based on their failure to obtain the required postgraduate degrees and was not illegal.

• Timeliness of UE’s Appeal: Respondents contended that UE filed its appeal to the NLRC beyond the required 10-day period; the postmaster gave notice on March 17, 2005, service was deemed complete five days later or on March 22, 2005, and UE had until April 1, 2005 to appeal, but filed only on April 14, 2005.
• Non-Forum Shopping Certification: Respondents argued that the petition should be denied because it failed to enclose a certification from the UE Board of Trustees authorizing petitioner Dean Javier to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
• Employment Status: Respondents argued that they should be regarded as permanent or regular employees because UE hired them in 1997 and 2000 under the 1994 CBA, which did not yet require a master’s degree for regular status, and because they had complied with the three requirements of full-time service, three consecutive years of service, and satisfactory services.

• Timeliness of Appeal: Whether UE filed a timely appeal to the NLRC from the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.
• Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping: Whether UE’s petition before the Supreme Court can be given due course given its failure to enclose a certification from the UE Board of Trustees empowering petitioner Dean Javier to execute the verification and certification of non-forum shopping.
• Illegal Dismissal / Employment Status: Whether UE illegally dismissed Bueno and Pepanio.

• Timeliness of Appeal: Yes. UE filed its appeal to the NLRC on time; service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt or after five days from first notice, but there must be conclusive proof that the registry notice was received, and absent such proof the April 4, 2005 registry return receipt controlled.
• Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping: Yes. The petition may be given due course despite the absence of a board certification; such authorization is not necessary when it is self-evident that the signatory is in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations, as Dean Javier was.
• Illegal Dismissal / Employment Status: No. Respondents did not attain regular or permanent status because they lacked the required master’s degree; their semester-to-semester and probationary appointments did not ripen into tenure, and non-renewal was not illegal dismissal.

• Timeliness of Appeal: The rule on completeness of service by registered mail is that the reckoning period starts either from the date of actual receipt of the mail by the addressee or after five days from the date he received the first notice from the postmaster. There must be conclusive proof, however, that the registry notice was received by or at least served on the addressee before the five-day period begins to run. In this case, the records failed to show that Atty. Mison actually received the alleged registry notice from the post office on March 22, 2005 requiring him to claim his mail; respondents did not present a copy of the receipt evidencing that notice. The Court therefore considered the registry return receipt bearing the date April 4, 2005, showing Atty. Mison’s receipt of a copy of the LA Decision, as conclusive proof of service on that date. Reckoned from April 4, 2005, UE filed its appeal to the NLRC on time. The NLRC Rules of Procedure, Section 7, and Antonio vs. Court of Appeals support this ruling.
• Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping: As a general rule, the Board of Directors or Board of Trustees of a corporation must authorize the person who signs the verification and certification against non-forum shopping of its petition. The Court has held, however, that such authorization is not necessary when it is self-evident that the signatory is in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition. Here, the verification and certification were signed by petitioner Dean Javier who, based on the given facts, was in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition. Thus, the petition could be given due course despite the absence of a board certification. Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue is cited.
• Illegal Dismissal / Employment Status: The policy requiring postgraduate degrees of college teachers was provided in the Manual of Regulations as early as 1992. The 1994 CBA itself provided that UE was to extend only semester-to-semester appointments to college faculty staff who did not possess the minimum qualifications. A school CBA must be read in conjunction with statutory and administrative regulations governing faculty qualifications; such regulations form part of a valid CBA without need for express reference. While contracting parties may establish stipulations, clauses, terms, and conditions as they see fit, the right to contract is subject to the limitation that the agreement must not be contrary to law or public policy. The State, through Batas Pambansa Bilang 232 (The Education Act of 1982), delegated the administration of the education system and the supervision and regulation of educational institutions to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (now Department of Education). In promulgating the Manual of Regulations, DECS exercised its power of regulation over educational institutions, including prescribing minimum academic qualifications for teaching personnel. In 1994, the legislature transferred the power to prescribe such qualifications to the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), whose charter authorized it to set minimum standards for programs and institutions of higher learning. The Manual of Regulations continued to apply to colleges and universities, and suppletorily the Joint Order, until 2010 when CHED issued a Revised Manual of Regulations specifically applying only to tertiary education institutions. The master’s degree requirement for tertiary education teachers is not unreasonable because the operation of educational institutions involves public interest, and the government has a right to ensure that only qualified persons with sufficient academic knowledge and teaching skills are allowed to teach. Government regulation in this field is desirable to protect students and the public from ill-prepared teachers; they may be required to take an examination or possess postgraduate degrees as a prerequisite to employment. Respondents were each given only semester-to-semester appointments from the beginning precisely because they lacked the required master’s degree. Only when UE and the faculty union signed the 2001 CBA did the school extend them a conditional probationary status subject to obtaining a master’s degree within their probationary period. The parties therefore intended to subject respondents’ permanent status appointments to the standards set by law and the university. UE gave respondents more than ample opportunities to acquire the postgraduate degree required, but they did not take advantage of them. Justice, fairness, and due process demand that an employer should not be penalized for situations where it had little or no participation or control. Thus, no illegal dismissal occurred. Escorpizo vs. University of Baguio, Professional Regulation Commission vs. De Guzman, and St. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association-AFW vs. National Labor Relations Commission support the ruling.

• CBA Read in Conjunction with Regulations — A school CBA must be read in conjunction with statutory and administrative regulations governing faculty qualifications; such regulations form part of a valid CBA without need for the parties to make express reference to it. The Court applied this to the 1994 and 2001 CBAs, holding that they were subject to the Manual of Regulations and the Joint Order requiring a master’s degree.
• Minimum Academic Qualifications for College Faculty — Teaching or academic personnel who do not meet the minimum academic qualifications shall not acquire tenure or regular status. The Court applied this to respondents, who lacked the required master’s degree, and held that their repeated semester-to-semester appointments did not confer regular status.
• Probationary Status Does Not Automatically Ripen into Permanent Status — The four-semester probationary period under the old CBA did not automatically confer permanent status; respondents still had to meet the standards for permanent employment under the Manual of Regulations and the Joint Order. Their failure to obtain the required postgraduate degrees justified non-renewal.
• Service by Registered Mail — Completeness of service by registered mail is reckoned either from actual receipt by the addressee or agent, or after five days from the date of first notice by the postmaster if the addressee fails to claim the mail. There must be conclusive proof that the registry notice was received or served before the five-day period begins to run. The Court applied this by disregarding the alleged March 22, 2005 notice and using the April 4, 2005 registry return receipt.
• Corporate Authorization for Verification and Certification Against Non-Forum Shopping — The board of directors or trustees of a corporation must generally authorize the person who signs the verification and certification against non-forum shopping. Such authorization is not necessary when it is self-evident that the signatory is in a position to verify the truthfulness and correctness of the allegations in the petition. The Court applied this exception to Dean Javier.
• Public Interest in Educational Institutions — The operation of educational institutions involves public interest, and the government may regulate teaching qualifications to protect students and the public from ill-prepared teachers. The Court held that requiring a master’s degree for tertiary education teachers is not unreasonable and may be imposed as a prerequisite to employment.

• "For completeness of service by registered mail, the reckoning period starts either (a) from the date of actual receipt of the mail by the addressee or (b) after five days from the date he received the first notice from the postmaster." — States the controlling rule on service by registered mail used to resolve the timeliness of UE’s appeal to the NLRC.
• "There must be a conclusive proof, however, that the registry notice was received by or at least served on the addressee before the five-day period begins to run." — Establishes the evidentiary requirement that prevented the Court from counting the appeal period from the alleged March 22, 2005 notice.
• "a school CBA must be read in conjunction with statutory and administrative regulations governing faculty qualifications. Such regulations form part of a valid CBA without need for the parties to make express reference to it." — Articulates the ratio decidendi on why the CBAs did not exempt respondents from the master’s degree requirement.
• "The requirement of a masteral degree for tertiary education teachers is not unreasonable. The operation of educational institutions involves public interest." — Defines the regulatory and public-interest basis for the minimum academic qualification requirement.
• "Justice, fairness, and due process demand that an employer should not be penalized for situations where it had little or no participation or control." — Supports the conclusion that UE was not liable for illegal dismissal after respondents failed to obtain the required degree despite opportunities.

• Escorpizo vs. University of Baguio, 366 Phil. 166 (1999) — Cited for the rule that a school CBA must be read in conjunction with statutory and administrative regulations governing faculty qualifications, which form part of a valid CBA without express reference.
• Antonio vs. Court of Appeals, 249 Phil. 123, 129 (1988) — Cited for the requirement of conclusive proof that the registry notice was received by or served on the addressee before the five-day period for service by registered mail begins to run.
• Cagayan Valley Drug Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 151413, February 13, 2008, 545 SCRA 10, 18-19 — Cited for the exception to the corporate board authorization requirement for verification and certification against non-forum shopping when the signatory is evidently in a position to verify the allegations.
• Professional Regulation Commission vs. De Guzman, 476 Phil. 596, 618 (2004) — Cited for the government’s power to require an examination or postgraduate degrees as a prerequisite to employment in regulated fields.
• St. Luke’s Medical Center Employee’s Association-AFW vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 162053, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 677, 688 — Cited for the principle that an employer should not be penalized for situations where it had little or no participation or control.

• Article IX, Section 44, paragraph 1(a), Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (DECS Order 92, s. 1992) — Requires college faculty members to have a master’s degree as the minimum educational qualification for acquiring regular status. Applied to deny regular status to respondents who lacked the degree.
• DECS-CHED-TESDA-DOLE Joint Order 1, Series of 1996 — Reiterated that teaching or academic personnel who do not meet the minimum academic qualifications shall not acquire tenure or regular status. Applied as part of the regulatory standards governing respondents’ appointments.
• Batas Pambansa Bilang 232 (The Education Act of 1982) — Delegated the administration of the education system and the supervision and regulation of educational institutions to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports. Cited to support DECS’s power to promulgate the Manual of Regulations and prescribe minimum academic qualifications.
• Republic Act No. 7722, Sections 8(d) and 8(o) — Authorized the Commission on Higher Education to set minimum standards for programs and institutions of higher learning. Cited to show the transfer of power to prescribe faculty qualifications to CHED.
• 2005 NLRC Rules of Procedure, Section 7 — Provides that service by registered mail is complete upon receipt by the addressee or his agent, or after five days from the date of first notice of the postmaster if the addressee fails to claim the mail. Applied to hold UE’s appeal timely from April 4, 2005.

Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Diosdado M. Peralta, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen concurred. No separate concurring opinions adding significant reasoning are summarized in the text.