Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 110 views

    (Art. 281) Mercado. vs. AMA Computer College-Paranaque City, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous wbEpfdM
    The Supreme Court ruled that the termination of five teachers at AMA Computer College was illegal. While the teachers had fixed-term contracts and were still considered probationary employees based on their length of service, the school could not terminate them without just cause. The school claimed the teachers failed new performance standards, but did not present evidence of exactly what the standards were or how they were applied to the teachers. As probationary employees, the teachers could only be terminated for just cause or if found unqualified to become regular employees. Since just cause was not sufficiently proven, the termination was deemed illegal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    (Art. 281) Mercado. vs. AMA Computer College-Paranaque City, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous wbEpfdM
    110 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the termination of five teachers at AMA Computer College was illegal. While the teachers had fixed-term contracts and were still considered probationary employees based on their length of service, the school could not terminate them without just cause. The school claimed the teachers failed new performance standards, but did not present evidence of exactly what the standards were or how they were applied to the teachers. As probationary employees, the teachers could only be terminated for just cause or if found unqualified to become regular employees. Since just cause was not sufficiently proven, the termination was deemed illegal.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    %5bArt. 281%5d Mercado. vs. AMA Computer College-Paranaque City%2c Inc.%2c

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the termination of five teachers at AMA Computer College was illegal. While the teachers had fixed-term contracts and were still considered probationary employees based on their length of service, the school could not terminate them without just cause. The school claimed the teachers failed new performance standards, but did not present evidence of exactly what the standards were or how they were applied to the teachers. As probationary employees, the teachers could only be terminated for just cause or if found unqualified to become regular employees. Since just cause was not sufficiently proven, the termination was deemed illegal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    110 views3 pages

    (Art. 281) Mercado. vs. AMA Computer College-Paranaque City, Inc.

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous wbEpfdM
    The Supreme Court ruled that the termination of five teachers at AMA Computer College was illegal. While the teachers had fixed-term contracts and were still considered probationary employees based on their length of service, the school could not terminate them without just cause. The school claimed the teachers failed new performance standards, but did not present evidence of exactly what the standards were or how they were applied to the teachers. As probationary employees, the teachers could only be terminated for just cause or if found unqualified to become regular employees. Since just cause was not sufficiently proven, the termination was deemed illegal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Yolanda Mercado. vs. AMA Computer College-Paranaque City, Inc.

    G. R. No. 183572, April 13, 2010


    DOCTRINE: A system of fixed-term contract is a system that operates during the probationary
    period and for this reason, it is subject to the terms of Article 281 of the Labor Code, which requires
    that the services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be
    terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee
    KEYWORDS: Probationary status and fixed-term employment of teachers

    FACTS:
    Yolanda Mercado, Charito de Leon, Diana Lachica, Margarito Alba and Felix Tonog (petitioners)
    were faculty members who started teaching at AMACC on May 1998. They executed individual
    Teachers Contracts for each of the trimesters that they were engaged to teach, with the following
    common stipulation:
    POSITION. The TEACHER has agreed to accept a non-tenured appointment
    to work in the College of xxx effective xxx to xxx or for the duration of the last
    term that the TEACHER is given a teaching load based on the assignment
    duly approved by the DEAN/SAVP-COO.
    For the school year 2000-2001, AMACC implemented new faculty screening guidelines wherein
    teachers were to be hired or maintained based on extensive teaching experience, capability,
    potential, high academic qualifications and research background. The performance standards
    under the new screening guidelines were also used to determine the present faculty members
    entitlement to salary increases.
    Petitioners failed to obtain a passing rating based on the performance standards; hence AMACC
    did not give them any salary increase.
    Because of AMACCs action on the salary increases, the petitioners-teachers filed a complaint with
    the Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on July 2000 for
    underpayment of wages, non-payment of overtime and overload compensation, 13th month pay,
    and for discriminatory practices.
    On September 2000, the petitioners-teachers individually received a memorandum from AMACC
    informing them that with the expiration of their contract to teach, their contract would no longer be
    renewed.
    Petitioners amended their labor arbitration complaint to include the charge of illegal dismissal
    against AMACC. Petitioners-teachers claimed that their dismissal was illegal because it was made
    in retaliation for their complaint for monetary benefits and discriminatory practices against AMACC.

    In response, AMACC contended that the petitioners-teachers worked under a contracted term
    under a non-tenured appointment and were still within the three-year probationary period for
    teachers. Their contracts were not renewed for the following term because they failed to pass the
    Performance Appraisal System for Teachers (PAST). This move was justified according to AMACC
    since the school has to maintain its high academic standards.
    Labor Arbiter: Petitioners had been illegally dismissed and ordered AMACC to reinstate them to
    their former positions without loss of seniority rights and to pay them full backwages, attorneys
    fees and 13th month pay.
    NLRC: denied AMACCs appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the Labor Arbiters ruling.
    CA:
    Upon appeal of AMACC before the CA, the CA granted AMACCs petition and dismissed
    petitioners complaint for illegal dismissal.
    The CA ruled that under the Manual for Regulation for Private Schools, the petitioners were still
    within their probationary period since their teaching stints only covered a period of two (2) years
    and three (3) months when AMACC decided not to renew their contracts on September 2000. To
    the CA, the petitioners were not actually dismissed; their respective contracts merely expired and
    were no longer renewed by AMACC because they failed to satisfy the schools standards for the
    school year 2000-2001 that measured their fitness and aptitude.
    Petitioners filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the decision of the CA.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the the termination of employment of employees on probationary status was valid.
    HELD:
    No.
    The existence of the term-to-term contracts covering the petitioners-teachers employment is not
    disputed, nor it is disputed that they were on probationary status from the time they were employed
    on May 1998 and until the expiration of their teaching contracts on September 2000
    This case, however, brings to the fore the essential question, should the teachers probationary
    status be disregarded simply because the contracts were fixed-term?
    The school apparently utilizes its fixed-term contracts as a convenient arrangement dictated by the
    trimestral system and not because the parties really intended to limit the period of their relationship
    to any fixed term and to finish this relationship at the end of that term. While nothing is illegitimate
    in defining the school-teacher relationship in this manner, the school, however, cannot forget that its
    system of fixed-term contract is a system that operates during the probationary period and for this
    reason, it is subject to the terms of Article 281 of the Labor Code, which requires that the services

    of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause
    or when he fails to qualify as a regular employee. Unless this reconciliation is made, the
    requirement of Article of 281 of the Labor Code on probationary status would be fully negated as
    the school may freely choose not to renew contracts simply because their terms have expired.
    If the school were to apply the probationary standards (as in fact it says it did in the present case),
    these standards must not only be reasonable but must have also been communicated to the
    teachers at the start of the probationary period, or at the very least, at the start of the period when
    they were to be applied. While AMACC claimed that the petitioners-teachers failed to pass the
    PAST and other requirements for regularization, the exact terms of the standards were never
    introduced as evidence; neither does the evidence show how these standards were applied to
    petitioners-teachers
    Inevitably, the termination of employment of employees on probationary status lacks the supporting
    finding of just cause that the law requires and, hence, illegal. #FERNANDO

    You might also like