RAYMOND A.

SON
vs.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
GR 211273 APRIL 18,2018

FACTS:
Petitioners Son and Antiola were hired by UST in June, 2005, while Pollarco was
employed earlier oR in June 2004. Under their respective appointment papers, petitioners
were designated as “Faculty members of PROBATIONARY status,” whose accession of
tenure status is conditioned by their meeting all the requirements provided under existing
university rules and regulations and other applicable laws, including among others,
possession of the prerequisite graduate degree before the expiration of the probationary
period and by their satisfactory performance of their duties and responsibilities set forth
in the job description.

The UST-UST Faculty Union CBA, in line with the 1992 Revised Manual of Regulations for private
schools issued by then DECS and the CHED’s Memorandum Order No. 40-08 provided that
“Although the master’s degree is an entry requirement, a faculty member admitted to serve
the university without a master’s degree is an entry requirement, a faculty member admitted to
serve the university without a master’s degree shall finish his master’s degree in five semesters.
If he does not finish his degree in five semesters, he shall be separated from service at the end of
the fifth semester; however, if he is made to serve the University further, in spite of lack of
master’s degree, he shall be deemed to have attained tenure.”

Petitioners did not possess the required master’s degree, but were nonetheless
hired by UST on the condition that they fulfill the requirement within the prescribed
period. Petitioner enrolled in the Master’s program, but were unable to finish the same.
In spite of their failure to obtain the required master’s degree, they continued to teach
beyond the period given for the completion thereof.

On March 3, 2010, the CHED Chairman issued a Memorandum addressed to

Presidents of public and private higher education institutions, directing the strict
implementation of the minimum qualification for faculty members of undergraduate
programs, particularly the Master’s degree and licensure requirements”

UST informed the petitioners of its decision to cease reappointment of those who
failed to complete their Master’s degree, but allow a written appeal from the concerned
faculty members who are due for thesis defense/completion for their Master’s degrees.

Petitioners however did not make a written appeal operating on the belief that
they have been vested tenure under the CBA. On June 10, 2010, they received termination
letters for failure to obtain Master’s degree, prompting the petitioners to file a labor case
against the respondents for unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal and recovery of money
claims.

ISSUE: Were the petitioners illegally dismissed?

RULING:

No. When the CBA was executed by the parties in 2006, they had no right to include
therein the provision relative to the acquisition of tenure by default, because it is contrary
to and thus violative of, the 1992 Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools that
is in effect at that time. As such, said CBA provision in void, and has no effect as between
the parties. Thus going by the requirements of law, it is plain to see that petitioners are
not qualified to teach in the undergraduate programs of the UST. Petitioners knew this-
that they cannot continue to teach for failure to secure their master’s degrees- and
needed no reminding of this fact: “those who are seeking to be educators are presumed
to kno these mandated qualifications.”
The court held in Manaois vs St. Scholastica that for failure of Manaois to satisfy
the academic requirements for the position, she may only be considered as part-time
instructor. A part time member of the academic personnel cannot acquire permanence of
the employment and security of tenure under the Manual of Regulations in relation to the
Labor Code.