ST. JAMES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY VS. SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA ST.

JAMES SCHOOL OF QUEZON CITY FACTS: Respondent union sought to represent the rankand-file employees, consisting of the motor pool, construction and transportation employees, of petitioner-school's Tandang Sora campus. Petitioner-

of the 149 qualified voters cast their votes, a quorum existed during the motor certification pool, election. The and computation of the quorum should be based on the rank-and-file construction transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus and not on all the employees in St. James' five 5 campuses. Moreover, the administrative, teaching and office personnel are not members of the union. They do not belong to the bargaining unit that the union seeks to represent.

school opposed it by contending that the bargaining unit should not only be composed of said employees but must include administrative, teaching and office personnel in its 5 campuses. ISSUE: Whether or not there existed a quorum in the formation of the labor union in determining its validity. RULING: The contention. Supreme The Court disagreed with said and motor pool, construction

LOLITA R. LACUESTA VS. ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY FACTS: Respondent Ateneo hired, on a contractual basis, petitioner Lolita R. Lacuesta as a part-time lecturer for the 2nd semester of school year 1988-1989. She was rehired, still on a contractual basis, for the 1st and 2nd semesters of school year 1989-1990. Petitioner was appointed as full-time instructor on probation effective June 1, 1990 until March 31, 1991. Her contract as faculty on probation was renewed on April 1, 1991 until March 31, 1992 and again from April 1, 1992 until March

transportation employees of the Tandang Sora campus had 149 qualified voters at the time of the certification election, hence, it was ruled that the 149 qualified voters should be used to determine the existence of a quorum during the election. Since a majority or 84 out

31, 1993. During years she was on probation status. In a letter dated January 27, 1993, respondent notified petitioner that her contract would no longer be renewed because she did not integrate well with the English Department and that she was not being terminated, but her contract would simply expire; hence, Lacuestas petition. ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner has already acquired permanent employment and was illegally dismissed. RULING: The requisites to acquire permanent employment, or security of tenure, are (1) the teacher is a full-time teacher; (2) the teacher must have rendered three consecutive years of service; and (3) such service must have been satisfactory. Only when one has served as a full-time teacher can he acquire permanent or regular status. The petitioner 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. Thus, 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.

Moreover, completing the probation period does not automatically qualify her to become a permanent employee of the university. Petitioner 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. In the instant case, petitioner, did not attain permanent status and was not illegally dismissed.

AKLAN COLLEGE, INC. VS. RODOLFO P. GUARINO FACTS: Private respondent Guarino was first hired as an instructor by petitioner College. Private respondent was then appointed as Acting Dean of the Commerce and Secretarial Department. He was again appointed by the petitioner as Acting Personnel Director, in addition to his duties as acting dean. His appointment as Acting Personnel Director was in a temporary basis and until it is revoked by the President or Rector of the College. Private respondent went on leave for one year. Upon his

return, he wrote the petitioner through its Rector informing the latter of his intention of reassuming his positions with the petitioner college. Petitioner formally informed private respondent that the Board of Trustees of the petitioner college has decided not to allow him to reassume his position as Acting Dean for the reason that he has not qualified to continue holding the position and that the position of Acting Personnel Director has already been filled up by a regular incumbent. Hence, private respondent filed the instant case for illegal dismissal against petitioner.

for cause. In La Salette vs. NLRC, the Court was clear in ruling that, unlike teachers who aspire for and expect to acquire permanency, or security of tenure, in their employment as faculty members, teachers who are appointed as department heads or administrative officials do not normally, and should not expect to, acquire a second status of permanency or a second security of tenure as such officer. In the instant case, it is not disputed that respondent was never removed from his position as instructor. He was only dismissed from his capacity as Acting Dean and Acting Personnel Director.

ISSUE: Whether security of or not Guarino his acquired a second to an FACTS: RULING: No. The Court has held that an acting appointment is merely temporary, or one which is good until another appointment is made to take its place. The undisturbed unanimity of cases is that one who holds a temporary appointment has no fixed tenure of office; his employment can be terminated anytime at the pleasure of the appointing power without need to show that it is AMA and Emilio Tayao executed a contract of lease over the latters parcel of land. AMA has an option to purchase the property. When petitioner was about to exercise its option to buy the land, Tayao commenced a scheme to frustrate the formers plan by obtaining a loan from FELN, executing promissory notes in favor of FELN. Allegedly, Tayao defaulted in the payment of the AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE VS. ATTY. A.D. VALMONTE tenure from appointment

administrative position and was illegally dismissed.

loan. So, FELN fabricated a complaint for collection of a sum of money against Tayao with respondent Valmonte as counsel. Tayao and FELN executed a Compromise Agreement which was approved and filed with the trial court a motion for execution of its Compromise Judgment which was also granted making it final and executory. Petitioner filed a complaint for suspension as attorney against respondent. Petitioner alleged therein that respondent committed fraudulent acts with the purpose to deprive petitioner of its option to buy the subject property. The trial court dismissed the complaint and the CA affirmed the decision of the trial court. Thus, petitioner certiorari. ISSUE: Whether or not a petition for review on certiorari reviews both errors of law and errors of fact. filed an instant petition for review on

verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. Clearly, in a petition for review on certiorari, this Court is limited to reviewing errors of law absent any showing that the findings of fact of the appellate court are not supported by the records. Obviously, petitioner pleads that we substitute our own judgment to those of the trial court and the appellate court by conducting our own evaluation of the evidence. This contravenes Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules requiring the petition to raise only questions of law. This Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, subject to certain exceptions, none of which is present here.

AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE VS. ZENAIDA R. GARAY FACTS:

RULING: No. Section 1, Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that a party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a High

Respondent Zenaida Garay is the principal of the School Department of AMACC. Garay was suspected of having taken the money worth P47,299.34 that was left by an AMACC cashier. The incident reached petitioner Carmelita Condenuevo and she immediately ordered the investigation of Garay. Garay was subjected

to physical inspection and her office was searched, but the petitioners did not find the envelope. Petitioners served on respondent several notices enjoining her to appear during the hearings and to submit her written explanation. Garay complied but the hearings were always cancelled. The petitioners terminated Garays employment on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Garay filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement with payment of backwages. Labor Arbiter Eduardo Carpio rendered judgment finding that Garays employment was terminated on mere suspicion, which was also affirmed by the NLRC. Petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but was denied. The petitioners then filed this instant petition for review. ISSUE: Whether or not AMACCs loss of trust and confidence in Garay is founded on facts established by substantial and competent evidence. RULING: To be a valid ground for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts. A breach is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and

purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employers arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer. Garay was initially investigated as one of the primary suspects for the loss of the P47,299.34. When it became clear that she was not liable for it, the petitioners changed their charge and accused her of exhibiting a belligerent and hostile attitude during the investigation. The records, however, reveal that Garay cooperated in the investigation process. The sudden shift made by the petitioners on the ground for terminating Garay only reinforces the Courts conviction that there was no basis in the first place to hold Garay suspect of any infraction. She could not in any credible way be connected with the loss of an envelope with cash left in the comfort room by the cashier.