12.

LACUESTA v ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY TIMELINE OF LAGUESMA’S ENGAGEMENT AS BOOK EDITOR

G.R. No. 152779| December 9, 2005 Laguesma was offered job as March 11, 1993
J. Quisumbing book editor
J. Asuncion Work as editor April 1, 1993 to March 31, 1994
Extension of contract June 16, 1994 to October 31,
TOPIC: Types of Employees 1994
Did not report to work anymore February 20, 1995
DOCTRINE: due to severe back problems

RECIT-READY: ARGUMENTS OF PARTIES

LAGUESMA ATENEO
FACTS: Labor Code (Arts. 280 and 281) MANUAL OF REGULATIONS FOR
PARTIES INVOLVED: applies in determining the status of PRIVATE SCHOOL is controlling
 EMPLOYER: Ateneo de Manila University employees in educational
 EMPLOYEE: Lolita Lacuesta, part-time lecturer in English
institutions
Department
Since she has worked for more than Under the Manual, full-time
6 months and was allowed to work teachers who have rendered three
HOW THE CASE STARTED:
thereafter, she becomes a regular consecutive years of satisfactory
TIMELINE OF LAGUESMA’S ENGAGEMENT IN THE ATENEO employee service shall be considered
AS LECTURER IN ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
permanent
Hired as part-time lecturer in 2nd sem of SY 1988- 1989
She is illegally dismissed being a Laguesma was not terminated but
English Department on
regular employee her employment contract expired at
contractual basis the end of the probationary period.
1ST RENEWAL: Rehired but still 1st and 2nd sem of SY 1989- RULING OF LA: Laguesma WAS illegally dismissed. Ordered
as part-time lecturer on 1990
reinstatement with payment of full back wages
contractual basis
 may not be terminated by mere lapse of the probationary period
First appointed as full-time June 1, 1990 until March 31, but only for just cause or failure to meet the employer’s standards
instructor on probation 1991 - Quitclaim executed by Laguesma was not a bar to filing a
2nd RENEWAL: Renewal of April 1, 1991 until March 31, complaint for illegal dismissal
contract as full-time instructor 1992 RULING OF NLRC: Laguesma was NOT illegally dismissed; Valid quitclaim
on probation
RULING OF CA: Affirmed NLRC
3RD RENEWAL: Still on April 1, 1992 until March 31,  Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and NOT the Labor Code,
probationary status 1993 that determines the acquisition of regular or permanent status of
 In 1993, Dr. Garcia, Dean of Ateneo’s Graduate School notified faculty members in an educational institution
Laguesma that her contract would no longer be renewed because
she did not integrate well with the English Department
- Laguesma appealed to the President of Ateneo at that time, Fr. ISSUES:
Bernas  WON Manual of Regulations for Private School shall apply in
 RESPONSE OF FR. BERNAS ON LAGUESMA’S APPEAL: determining the regular or permanent status of faculty members in
- that she was not being terminated, but her contract would educational institution.
simply expire.  WON Laguesma is a regular employee.
- that the university president makes a permanent appointment
only upon recommendation of the Dean and confirmation of RULING:
the Committee on Faculty Rank and Permanent Appointment. YES. MANUAL, AND NOT THE LABOR CODE APPLIES.
- that any appointment he might extend would be tantamount to  RULE: Under Section 93 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations, full-
a midnight appointment time teachers who have satisfactorily completed their probationary
 Laguesma applied for clearance to collect her final salary as period shall be considered regular or permanent.
instructor and signed Quitclaim, Discharge, and Release
 - Moreover, for those teaching in the tertiary level, the
probationary period shall not be more than six consecutive
regular semesters of satisfactory service.
- In UST v NLRC, under Policy Instructions No. 11 of DOLE, “the
probationary employment of professors, instructors and
teachers shall be subject to the standards established by the
Department of Education.

AS TO SECOND ISSUE
NO. LAGUESMA IS NOT A REGULAR EMPLOYEE
 RULE: The following are requisites to acquire permanent
employment or security of tenure:
1. the teacher is a full-time teacher;
2. the teacher must have rendered three consecutive years of
service;
3. such service must have been satisfactory.
 IN THIS CASE: Only when one has served as a fulltime teacher
can he acquire permanent or regular status
- AS TO FIRST REQUISITE (Absent): Laguesma was a part-
time lecturer before she was appointed as a full-time instructor
on probation. As a part-time lecturer, her employment as such
had ended when her contract expired.
- AS TO SECOND REQUISITE (Absent): the three semesters
she served as part-time lecturer could not be credited to her in
computing the number of years she has served to qualify her
for permanent status
- AS TO THIRD REQUISITE (Absent): Completing the
probation period does not automatically qualify her to become
a permanent employee of the university.
 Laguesma could only qualify to become a permanent
employee upon fulfilling the reasonable standards for
permanent employment as faculty member
 Consistent with academic freedom and constitutional
autonomy, an institution of higher learning has the
prerogative to provide standards for its teachers and
determine whether these standards have been met.
 At the end of the probation period, the decision to re-hire
an employee on probation, belongs to the university as the
employer alone.
 Upon expiration of their contract of employment, academic
personnel on probation cannot automatically claim security
of tenure and compel their employers to renew their
employment contracts
 THUS: Since all the requisites are absent, Laguesma did not attain
permanent status and was not illegally dismissed.