Part I

State Supervision and

Regulations Over Private
Educational Institutions
By:

ULPIANO P. SARMIENTO III

Teacher-Lawyer

SPD Education Consultancy Services (SPDECS)

May 9, 2009 @ Traders Hotel Manila
 Constitutional Mandate

Article XIV, Section 4 (1), 1987 Constitution

“The State recognizes the complementary

roles of the public and private institutions in
the educational system and shall exercise
reasonable supervision and regulation of all
educational institutions.”
The State has definite interest in providing
our people with first-rate formal education…

Because…

It is MANDATED to protect and PROMOTE

RIGHT of all CITIZENS to QUALITY
EDUCATION at all levels (Art. XIV, Sec.1)
To maintain HIGH QUALITY of formal
education, State (government) exercises
Supervision and Regulation

BUT NOT…

CONTROL
Reasonable supervision and regulation means–

• Prescription of regulations for building,

facilities, equipment, courses of study,
minimum scholastic and training standards,
qualification of teachers.
Hence…

State may NOT refuse or deny

establishment and operation of schools if it is
CAPABLE to comply with minimum
standards.
As a matter of FACT…
Section 18 of MORPHE now provides–

“A higher education institution that complies

with the minimum standards, requirements or
criteria as provided in the MORPHE and
other issuances of CHED SHALL be entitled
to the grant of a permit to operate/recognition
of a particular degree program.” (Applies also to
Basic Education)
Furthermore…

DepEd to adopt one common set of

minimum standards for PUBLIC and
PRIVATE schools specifically with regard to
opening of schools specifically with regard to
opening of schools/offering of courses in
elementary and secondary. (DECS Service Manual
2000, Title III, Chapter 2, Section 2 (2.1.))
CHED…

“xxx shall not impose any xxx academic or

curricular restriction xxx made upon private
higher education institution, which are not
required for SCU or LCU” (Section 19, par. 3,
MORPHE)
Authority to Operate
For DepEd/CHED, consists of two (2) PARTS:
a.) Permit Phase
b.) Recognition Phase
For TESDA, one (1) stage only:
a.) Registration of TVET Program

(Sec. 19, MRPS; Sec. 54, MORPHE; Sec. 29, TVET)

No institution may operate as a
school without PRIOR government
authorization
NOTE:

Even just to advertise or announce

opening of school or offering a
program without PERMIT! SUBJECT
TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY. (Section 68, BP
232, Section 1 & 2, Rule I, Part V, IRR and Section 12,
Act No. 2706)
 The PERMIT Phase
MRPS MORPHE

Application to be signed  -do-

under oath by
Chair/President/Head

 Filed with Regional Office  -do-

 On or before September  Not later than June 30

30 preceding the start of SY of year preceding AY of
when school to start operation
operation
 MRPS
 Regional Director to act
on all application within six
(6) months from filing of
application
 RD decision transmitted
to school before the end of
MARCH of SY preceding
operation
MORPHE
 RD to notify HEI of
deficiencies, if any, NOT
LATE than September 30
of same year application
was filed
 In case of deficiency,
HEI shall be allowed to
comply not later than
OCTOBER 31 same year
MRPS MORPHE
 CHED to dispatch QAT, not
later than NOVEMBER 30

 HEI to be officially informed of

deficiencies (If any) not later than
DECEMBER 15

 HEI to be given until JANUARY

31 to correct deficiencies

 QAT, re-evaluates/validates
and decision whether
approval/disapproval to be out by
FEBRUARY 28
NOTE:

MORPHE now provides that–

“Application xxx NOT disapproved

within the above-prescribed period, are
DEEMED APPROVED.” (Section 56, 2nd
paragraph)
 APPEAL in Case of Denial
MRPS MORPHE
In case of denial, One (1) appeal for
reconsideration may be reconsideration is allowed
instituted and application to to be filed with CHED within
be re-evaluated/re- one (1) month from receipt
processed in the same SY of WRITTEN
DISAPPROVAL

Appeal not favorably

considered, application
shall be considered,
application shall be
considered for next SY
 Applicability/Effectivity of PERMIT
MRPS MORPHE
Initial permit valid only for Initial permit is for 1st &
one(1) year for the specific 2nd year levels of program
educational program

While issued on a SY HEI must apply for permit

basis, shall remain valid to operate the 3rd level or
until revoked for cause for RECOGNITION on the
2nd year of operation of the
degree program
 MRPS
 Permit shall continue to
be valid and considered
renewed for another period
where the school already
applied for RECOGNITION
and DepEd has not
officially responded, either
favorably or unfavorably.
 It shall be valid for
purposes of graduating
students, if DepEd has not
responded in writing to
application (Sec.21, par.3)
MORPHE
 Permit issued considered
renewed and continue to
be valid for purposes of
graduating students during
period HEI has already
applied for RECOGNITION
and CHED has not
responded in writing either
favorably or unfavorably
 The RECOGNITION Phase
MRPS
Application for
Recognition to be filed with
RO
Not later than the end of
JANUARY of SY prior to
that recognition is sought
MORPHE
To be filed with RO
Not later than the 1st
working day of
NOVEMBER of SY prior to
that which recognition is
sought
Application for recognition
NOT disapproved within
period of three (3) months
from the date of filing, shall
be deemed approved
 Validity of Recognition
MRPS MORPHE
 Continues to be valid,  Remain valid, unless
unless written order withdrawn or revoke for
issued by DepEd to cause
revoke (Sec. 22, MRPS)
 Effects of Recognition
MRPS MORPHE
Transforms permit to Authority to grant,
permanent authority diploma, degree, etc.

Entitles the school to give

certificates, little degrees or
diploma

Entitles graduates to all Entitles graduates

benefits and privileges recognized programs to all
(Sec. 23, MRPS) benefits and privileges
(sec. 59, MORPHE)
Establishment of Branch and/or
Extension

School Branch–
a) separate site and attendant educational
facilities
b) offering programs offered in main school,
and
c) offering NOT restricted to special
clientele.
School Branch – possesses the characteristics of
school branch except:
a) administrative/support facilities not
available at site, merely classrooms;
b) enrollment is restricted to special
clientele, not available to general public; and
c) extension classes are temporary in nature.
 Establishment of Branch
MRPS MORPHE TVET
 Require prior  ditto  No prior approval
approval of DepEd required from
if located in TESDA
separate
city/municipality of
main school

 if in NCR, main  ditto  No prior approval

school also in NCR, even in NCR
prior approval
required

(Sec. 37, MRPS) (Sec. 23, MORPHE) (Sec. 59, TVET)

But…

DepEd Service Manual requires PRIOR

approval in all cases of Branch/Extension
opening (DECS Service Manual 2000,
Title III, Chapter 2, Section 5 (5.1). It also
requires the INCORPORATION as a
separate juridical entity for the
branch/extension.
 Establishment of Branch
MRPS MORPHE TVET
 No need in  No need; to  No need;
MRPS out DECS incorporate discretionary on
Service Manual branch/extension as school to
requires separate is incorporate
incorporation of discretionary on HEI branch/extension as
Branch/Extension separate
distinct from other
campus

(Title III, Chapter 2,

Section 5 (5.1)
 Establishment of Extension Class
MRPS MORPHE
 Prior NOTICE to DepEd to  Requires PRIOR approval of
offer only; NO prior approval CHED and compliance with the
following:

1) Proof of Level II
Accreditation of program; and

2) Proof of compliance with

policies and rules of CHED
 Transfer of Higher Education Institution
(MORPHE)

– shall not be required a new permit/recognition

provided:
1) New site better;
2) No new program offering;
3) Compliance with minimum requirements
for its programs; and
4) CHED is informed of transfer
Transfer of Site/Campus of Grade/High School
(MRPS)

– permit/recognition shall be REVOKED/cancelled

except if new site/campus/buildings are much
better.

(MECS Order No. 07, s. 1986, Feb. 4, 1986; DECS

Service Manual 2000, sec. 4 (4.7))
Tuition Fees

 Lifeblood of private schools, this is the

basic source of income for private schools.
1) Effecting Tuition Fee Increase

1.a For Tertiary

CHED Memo Order No.13, s. 1998
(Feb. 12, 1998) vs. CMO No. 14, s.
2007
Salient Points

 Applicable for Public and Private

 Consultation with student government, faculty,
alumni and non-academic personnel
 Consultations mean actual meetings and/or
discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of
proposed increase
 Must be initiated by Heads
 Must inform CHEDRO of the holding of consultations
at least 15 day prior. Presence of CHEDRO
representative may be requested
 No ceiling is IMPOSED
 Consultations required in all increases irrespective of
amount of increase
 Revival of application of CMO 13, s. 1998 is repeal of
CMO 14, s. 2007 particularly with regard to the ceiling
imposed in the latter CMO
 No consultation required for increase in other school
fees (Lina vs. Cariño)
1.b DepEd – For Basic Education still DECS
Order No. 20, s. 1994

 Recognizes Deregulation vis-à-vis private

school’s determination of tuition and
miscellaneous fee increases
 No consultations in other school fees
1.c TESDA – TESDA Board Resolution
No. 98-10, 12 August 1998

 No ceiling imposed
 No consultations for increase in other
school fees – only in case of increase in
tuition fees
2) Utilization of Incremental Proceeds from
Tuition Fee Increases (TFIP)

2.a Rule –
70% - of TFIP shall go to payment of
salaries, wages, allowances
and other benefits x x x
20% - shall go to improvement or
modernization of buildings,
equipment etc.
(RA 6728, Sec. 5 (2) as
amended by RA 8545)
2.b Formula in Determining TFIP

“Incremental Proceeds” should be

determined simply from the additional fees
charged per student times the number of
students, regardless of the gross income
and the number of the enrollees for the
period
Formula:
Increased Tuition Fee (rate) – Previous Tuition Fee (rate)
= Tuition Fee for Current Year
X [Number] of Actual Enrollees for Current Year
= Incremental Proceeds for Current Year

NOTE: The computation of the incremental

proceeds for tertiary level will be on a per unit
basis as the number of units taken by an
enrollee may differ from another enrollee
notwithstanding the fact that they are on the
same level year.
 SC clarification in St. Joseph’s College vs. St.
Joseph’s College Workers’ Assn. (SAMAHAN)

“xxx But the Decision is hereby CLARIFIED in

the sense (1) that 70 percent of the tuition fee
increase should be “allotted for the teaching and
non-teaching personnel,” not necessarily for an
increase in personnel compensation; and (2) in
computing the incremental proceeds from the
tuition fee increase, such increases for the
current year is to be multiplied by the number of
enrollees in the same year who have actually
paid for the increased tuition fees.”
Application of Revised Decision

Determination: Assuming – 10 Students, 3 of

whom are scholars
SY 2005-2006 SY 2006-2007
Tuition Fee: P10,000 Tuition Fee: P10,500

Hence:
P10,500-P10,000 = P500 x 7 = P3,500 (TFIP)

NOTE: Multiplier is 7 students only because only 7 out

of 10 actually paid the increased tuition fee.
2.c Schools obligated to increase salary and improve
benefit if there is tuition fee increase?

St. Joseph’s College v. St. Joseph’s College Workers’

Association, G.R. No. 155609, 18 July 2005–

“Private schools are not obligated at all times to

increase or raise (salaries and benefits) xxx if the
tuition fee increase does NOT allow such raise xxx”
Section 128, par. 3, MRPHEI–

Discretion is vested upon on the institution

authorities to determine the manner by which to
distribute the seventy percent (70%). Private
higher education institutions are not obligated at
all times to increase or raise personnel
compensation xxx.
Question:

Is school justified in collecting to pay other

charges called “land purchase deposit” in the
amount of P50,000.00 per student without
PRIOR approval of DepEd?
 The “Land Purchase Deposit” to raise fund
for purchase of property to be used as future
campus.

 Amount was refundable once the student

graduates or decides to withdraw/leave school.
The Supreme Court in the case of Sps. Virgilio and
Glynna F. Crystal, et al. vs Cebu International School
(356 SCRA 296) declared–

“xxx a deposit is illegal if it is part of the school fees or

a fee which represents (an) increase in tuition without
approval of DECS. Since it is NOT the deposit being
only an agreement between the parents and the
school, nothing would then be illegal (or would need)
the approval of a third party.”
Question:

What is Documentary Stamp Tax (DST)? Are

certificates issued by educational institutions
subject to DST?
The BIR, on March 17, 2008, issued Revenue
Memorandum Circular No. 25-2008, which states:

“This circular is being issued to reiterate certain

provisions of Revenue Regulations No. 9-2000 dated
August 31, 2000, implementing Section 188 of the
National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), particularly
with regard to all educational institutions for the
issuance of certificates subject to Documentary Stamp
Tax to wit–
 xxx

(e) An educational institution in respect of issuance of

taxable certificates (e.g., Diploma, Transcript of
Records, and other documents taxable as certificates
under Section 188 of the Code).
 Thus, educational institutions are liable to pay for
documentary stamp tax on diplomas, transcript of
records and other taxable documents as certificates it
issues.
 Failure to stamp a document or paper as required by
the law however does not render the transaction or
contract invalid.
 The effect of failure to stamp is that the document or
paper shall not be recorded nor shall it or any copy
thereof be admitted or used in evidence in any court
until the requisite stamp/s shall have been affixed
thereto and cancelled.
Professor Sabino Padilla Jr., however vehemently
disagrees, and stresses that since certificates
issued by private schools through its representative
who are not “xxx public officials or persons acting in
a public capacity xxx” may not be considered as
certificates issued by a public official or person
acting in a public capacity, thus, those documents
are not subject to the Documentary Stamp Tax.
 Post-Secondary / Technical-
Vocational Education Program

Minimum Basic Requirements

 Graduation from high school

 Graduates of foreign HS who may not fully satisfy
HS requirement may be admitted, provided,
deficiency will be corrected during first term of
enrollment
 College
Minimum Basic Requirements

 Graduate from high school

 Who has NOT completed HS but who has
qualified in the PEPT
 Graduate of foreign HS who does NOT fully
satisfy requirement of HS program may be admitted,
provided, deficiency to be corrected during first term
of enrollment.
(Sec. 60, MRPS; Sec. 81, MORPHE; Sec. 123, TVET)
Furthermore–

 NOT yet a HS graduate, but completed already at

least 11 curriculum years in GS and HS in other
countries may be ADMITTED (at discretion of
school)
 Those who completed already 12th grade may be
given advance credit at discretion of HEI
 Admission of Foreign Student
(in College)

 Compliance with conditions of admission provided

by law and CHED rules
 Must show that he/she has the means sufficient
to support the education in the Philippines
(Sec. 88, MORPHE)
Question:

Can a private school impose

ADDITIONAL admission requirements,
over and above what are required by
existing laws, rules and regulations?
Answer:

Sec. 61, MRPS, Sec. 83, MORPHE, and Sec.

137, TVET–

“Admission to any private school is

open (to those) who meet (the school’s)
specific standards, requirements and
regulations as expressed in printed
publication or other written material xxx.”
Basic Legal Issue

Issue in the choice of criteria is

whether the use of certain factors –
primarily passing an entrance examination,
race, color, national origin, sex, age,
handicap, or sexual orientation – is
partially or wholly precluded.
Except for certain statutory and regulatory
provisions, private schools, are free to
establish their own admission
criteria/requirement, including subjective
and objective standards for admission to
specialized areas of study. These
criteria/requirements must however be “xxx
expressed in printed publications or other
written material. xxx”
 Entrance Examination

Private schools have the right to

require application to take and pass
entrance examinations as a precondition
for acceptance. Thus, in Carvero vs.
Technological Institute of the Phils., et al.
(G.R. No. 75412. Dec. 5, 1986), the
Supreme Court ruled that–
 “xxx courts will not interfere with the
school’s prerogative to require students to
take entrance examinations before they
may be allowed to enroll xxx. This is part of
academic freedom in connection with
which the school has the right to choose
whom to teach.”
 Other Admission Requirements

Private schools have the right to impose

other rules and regulations for the admission of
student aside from the entrance examination
(Yap Chin Fah, et al. vs. CA, G.R. No. 90063,
Dec. 12, 1989). In the United States, the US
Supreme Court recognizes the right of private
schools to refuse admission to students on the
grounds of religion, gender and even handicap
(Grove City College vs. Bell, 465 US 555 [1984])
Question:

Who between the Administration

and the Faculty has the RIGHT to decide
WHOM to ADMIT?
Answer:

Academic Freedom in the Constitution (Article XIV,

Section 5 (2)) has three (3) perspective:

1) Point of view of teachers/professors;

2) From viewpoint of educational institution; and
3) From view of students
 To resolve the issue, we must
distinguish between academic freedom of
school from academic freedom of
teachers/professors.
 Academic Freedom of
Teachers/Professors – the liberty of
teacher/researcher xxx to investigate and
discuss the problems of his science and to
express his conclusions (to the public)
without interference from any authority or
from school administration xxx.
 Academic Freedom of Institution – covers
four (4) basic freedoms. These are to
determine/decide:

1) Who may enroll;

2) Who may teach;
3) How it shall be taught; and
4) How teaching is to be carried out
 Clearly, the school “xxx is
possessed of such right. xxx It has a wide
sphere of autonomy extending to the
choice of students. xxx” (Garcia vs. Loyola
School of Theology)
 In the case of Dean Marita Reyes vs. CA and
UP Board of Regents (G.R> No. 94961, Feb. 25,
1991), the SC declared–

“The academic freedom claimed by the faculty

to have been violated by the BOR when it issued the
questioned order is related to the right of UP to fix
admission requirements. xxx This right xxx clearly
vested by law in the University xxx.”
 A. Right to Stay in School (or Withdraw
Therefrom)

Section 9 (2), BP 232 states that students have–

“(t)he right to freely choose their field of study

xxx and to continue their course therin up to
graduation xxx.”
Section 61, MRPS–
“xxx student who qualifies for enrollment is
qualified to stay for the entire period in which he
is expected to complete the course in a school
xxx.”

Section 83, MRPHEI–

“xxx a student who qualifies for enrollment
shall qualify to stay for the entire period for which
he is expected to complete his program of study
xxx.”
Important Legal Implication

Juridical tie created by virtue of the Enrollment

Contract initially entered into is NOT CUT/BROKEN
after the semester or school year the student may
have enrolled in.
Ergo–

Rights and obligations of the school and the

student arising from the enrollment contract (as a
reciprocal obligation) continues.
 Student continues and remains to be an
official member of the school community even
during semestral vacations or summer breaks.
He/she, therefore, shall continually be subject to
school RULES and REGULATIONS that are still
appropriate and/or applicable.
 B. Right to Withdraw/Transfer

Section 61, MRPS–

“xxx a student who has not yet definitely enrolled
has the right to transfer within the period prescribed.”

Section 83, MRPHEI–

“xxx without prejudice to his right to transfer to
other institutions within the prescribed period.”
 Students eligible for transfer may
do so without hindrance: in fact, a school
cannot even prevent it’s own scholars
from transferring in spite of its having
“invested” in their education.
 In Cui vs. Arellano University, the Supreme
Court declared that the stipulation that a
student’s scholarship is good only if he continues
in the same school and that he waives his right to
transfer without refunding the equivalent of his
scholarship grant in cash is contrary to public
policy, xxx is NULL and VOID.
 Scholarship are awarded in
recognition of merit and “to help students
in whom society has an established
interest or first lien” and not to keep
outstanding students in school to bolster
prestige and increase its business
potential.
But…

If already OFFICIALLY or
DEFINITELY ENOLLED during a school
year or semester, student shall be obliged
to pay tuition and other fees.
Student is enrolled if–

1) he has submitted the appropriate

admission/transfer credentials;
2) he has made an initial payment on his
school fees which the school has accepted; and
3) he has been authorized to attend classes.
(See Section 84 (6) MRPHEI)
It must be stressed that RIGHT is NOT
JUST TO STAY

BUT ALSO…

while in School, to enjoy the following

RIGHTS:
 C. Right to Quality Education

Article XIV, Section 1, Constitution–

“The State shall protect and promote the

right of all citizens to quality education at all
levels xxx.”
What is QUALITY EDUCATION?

“xxx making sure that basic education is really

solid, because if it is not solid, it affects the quality of
secondary education. If secondary education is poor,
then the person goes to college unprepared for college
work. And if he is allowed to graduate again with a poor
quality college education, he goes to university
professional education even more unprepared.”
- Rev. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ
In short–

“A school, before promoting or

graduating a student, must be sure that he/she
(the student) is functionally literate to go
through next higher level.”
To ensure Quality Education:

1) Must be COMPETENT and EFFICIENT

Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers, Article

IV, Section 2–
“Every teacher shall uphold the highest possible
standards of quality education, shall make the best
preparation for the career of teaching, and shall be at
his best at all times in the practice of his profession.”
 (a) Right to Quality Education

BP 232 (Education Act of 1982), Section 16

(2) provides–

“The teacher shall xxx be accountable

for efficient and effective attainment of
specified learning objectives xxx.”
 (b) Right to be Evaluated/Given Grade

Section 16 (3) of BP 232, Teacher shall–

“Render regular reports on performance

of each student and to the latter and to the
latter’s parents and guardians with specific
suggestions for improvement.”
In computing grades–

Section 16 (5) of BP 232 mandates that a

teacher shall–

“Refrain from making deductions or

additions in student’s scholastic ratings for acts
that are clearly not manifestations of xxx
scholarship.”
Hence, Section 79 of the MRPS–
“Basis for Grading. – The xxx grade or
rating xxx in a student should be based
SOLELY on his scholastic performance. Any
addition or diminution to the grade in a subject
for co-curricular activities, attendance, or
misconduct shall NOT be allowed xxx.”
Code of Ethics provides–
“A teacher shall not xxx make
deductions from their scholastic ratings as a
punishment for acts which are clearly not
manifestations of poor scholarships.” (Article
VIII, Section 8)
 Thus, it is not a matter of discretion on
the part of the teachers in the giving of the
student’s grades, but rather it is a clear
obligation for the teachers to determine student
academic marks solely based on scholastic
performance. For a teacher to do otherwise,
would be serious academic malpractice or
grave misconduct in the performance of his/her
duties.
Recognizing the importance of the “grades”
to a student, the Supreme Court said in the
case of Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of
Science and Technology (G.R. No. 156109,
November 18, 2004) that–

“xxx (A) student’s grades are an

accepted approximation of what would
otherwise be an intangible product of countless
hours of study.”
 “The importance of grades cannot be
discounted in a setting where education is
generally the gate pass to employment
opportunities and better life; such grades are
often the means by which a prospective
employer measures whether a job applicant
has acquired the necessary tools or skills for a
particular profession or trade.”
 Exceptions

There are instances when the grade is not

determined solely by academic
performance, to wit:

1) A student may be given a failing mark if

he/she incurs absences of more than 20% of
the prescribed number of class or laboratory
periods;
 2) An addition to or reduction from the grade
for involvement in co-curricular activities,
attendance, or misconduct may be allowed when the
following conditions are present:
a) It is allowed by the school
administration;
b) The school explicitly provides for the
same in an appropriate issuance or publication to
make it known to the students who may be
directly affected; and
c) The adjustment is relevant to the subject
content and requirements
3) The student is found guilty of academic or
intellectual dishonesty, as when he/she is
caught cheating in an academic evaluation
exercise (such as examinations, quizzes or
guilty of plagiarism in connection with
academic submission of requirements).
 C. Right to Have Access to and
Confidentiality of Records

Section 9, pars. 4 & 5, BP 232–

Rights of Students in School.

xxx xxx xxx
4) The right to access to his own school
records, the confidentiality of which the
school shall maintain and preserve.
5) The right to the issuance of official
certificates, diplomas, transcript of
records, grades, transfer credentials
and other similar documents within 30
days from request.”
 Right to access to records is an individual
right, which means a right conferred by law
upon the student ONLY!! Within 30 days.

 Must promptly render or give grades.

Otherwise, the unjustified or unreasonable
delay in giving grades constitutes gross neglect
of duty.
In the case of University of the East vs.
Romeo A. Jader, the SC declared–

“It is the contractual obligation of the school

(through the teachers) to TIMELY INFORM
AND FURNISH sufficient notice and
information to each and every student as to
whether he/she had already complied with all
the requirements xxx.
 The negligent act of a teacher who fails
to observe the rules of the school, for instance,
by not promptly submitting a student’s grade is
not only imputable to the teacher but is an act
of the school being his/her employer xxx.”
Right to CONFIDENTIALITY requires that the
student’s RECORD must be released only–
1) To the student
2) To the parents
 In case of minors
 In case already of majority age but still
wholly dependent upon parents for support
 Spouse does NOT have right to access
3) To authorized representatives
 Must have the written authorization
from student/parents
4) To other members of school
administration/faculty if:
 For legitimate education interest
5) To third persons–
 Upon lawful order of court thru the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum
 Or when public safety and order requires it
 Officials/other schools in which the student seeks to
enroll
 Authorized representative of government as long as
records are not identifiable to a particular student
 In connection with a student’s application for or
receipt of financial aid
 Groups conducting studies for educational
agencies if personal ID of students is destroyed
after
 Accrediting organizations
 Regulations of government entities (like
DepEd, CHED, TESDA, DSWD, DOH)
 NOTE:
Rule on Confidentiality covers only CLASSIFIED
or STRICTLY confidential records which are:

 Personal and academic  Medical and guidance

records reports
 Baptismal or birth certificate  Disciplinary records (if
(PD 607, Art. 7) entrusted)
 Adoption papers  Alien Certificate of
Registration (ACR)
 Academic reports
 Does NOT apply to Unclassified or Non-
Confidential such as:

 Enrollment list  School annuals

 Class and teacher programs  Catalogues
 Teaching contracts  Approval of courses
 Directory of grades  Permits/Recognition
 Statistical records
Question:
May the grades of students be posted on the
school door or bulletin boards?

Answer:
In the case of Kryston vs. Board of Education (77
A.D. 2d 896, 430 N.Y. S. 2d 688 (App. Div. 2nd Dept. 1980)), the US
Supreme Court held that disclosure of tests scores if
scrambled and with names deleted would protect the
privacy of students.
Question:
May the records released to
another school upon transfer of a student,
particularly the Transcript of Records,
include the release of disciplinary
records?
 In the case of Einstein vs. Maus, the
US Supreme Court held that school officials
have the right and “xxx we think, a duty to
record and to communicate true factual
information about their students to
institutions of higher learning, for the
purpose of giving to the latter an accurate
and complete picture of the applicants for
admission.”
BUT…

Right to Stay in School

NOT ABSOLUTE
 As stated in Section 61 (MRPS) and Section
137, TVET, a student’s RIGHT TO STAY ceases in
cases of–
1) Academic delinquency;
2) Violation of school rules and regulations; and
3) Closure of school itself
 While the MORPHE, in Section 83, in addition
to the above, provides for the following as
grounds:
a) Failure to settle due tuition and other
fees/obligations; and
b) Sickness/disease
 In Arleo F. Magtibay vs. Lt. Col. Santiago
Garcia (120 SCRA 370), the SC declared–
“True, an institution of learning has a
contractual obligation to afford its students a fair
opportunity to complete course xxx. However, when
a student commits a serious breach of discipline or
fails to maintain required academic standard, he
FORFEITS his CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS xxx. ”
 I. Closure of Program or
Closure of School itself

The Supreme Court in Capitol Medical

Center vs. CA (178 SCRA 493) declared–
“The contract between the college and the
student who is enrolled and pays the fees for the
semester is for the entire semester only, not for the
entire course. The law does not require a school to
see a student through to the completion of his
course. If the school closes or is closed by proper
authority at the end of the semester, the student has
no cause of action for breach of contract against the
school.”
 Furthermore, since students have
no legal obligation to stay enrolled in a
school (for MRPS, MORPHE and TVET
provide that a student has “xxx the right to
transfer to other schools”), it would be
utterly unfair for them to oblige a school to
continue operating simply to allow them to
complete their courses.
 II. Academic Delinquency

In University of San Agustin vs. CA, the

Supreme Court said–
“While it is true that an institution of learning
has a contractual obligation to afford its student a
fair opportunity to complete the course they seek to
pursue xxx (w)hen a student xxx fails to maintain the
required academic standards he forfeits his
contractual right xxx.”
 As stated earlier, the determination
of who should be admitted, re-enrolled or
allowed to graduate are matters that
pertain to Institutional academic freedom
and NOT that of individual professor.
 III. Diseases or Health Reasons

MORPHE now expressly PROVIDES for

this as VALID ground NOT to re-admit if…

The Disease or Sickness–

1) prevent student to handle normal pressures
of school work; or
2) Continued presence at school would be
deleterious to other members of the academic
community.
 In State ex rel. Halcomb vs. Armstrong, US
SC in explaining why a student should be denied
admission in case of sickness/disease–
“xxx regulation in question “was an exercise
by the school of the power to guard, xxx, that which
they should and must protect–the health and
physical condition of students, which was as much
the responsibility of the University as their mental
training development.”
ALSO…
If a school allows a student to
continue on attending classes knowing
fully well that his/her continued stay is
PREJUDICIAL to student’s health or to
others, school may be liable under
Article 218 and 219 of Family Code.
 IV. Failure to Pay Tuition and
Other Fees

MORPHE now provides that re-

admission may be denied if the student fails
“xxx to settle due tuition and other school fees
and other obligations xxx.”
Question:
Is it applicable to Basic/TVET schools?

Answer:
OF COURSE. Survival of school is principally
dependent on the payment of tuition/other fees.
 Besides, in Julia L. Tan, et al. vs. CA, the
SC declared–

“In the instant case, since (parents of

students) have failed to comply with the conditions
and prerequisites for admission, i.e., xxx payment of
duly approved tuition fees xxx, the school cannot be
regarded as having acted ARBITRARY or
CAPRICIOUSLY in refusing to re-enroll petitioners.”
 Remedial Measures to Enforce
Contractual Obligation to Pay

FIRST: Drop/suspend the Student from the

Rolls

To drop or suspend the student is to extra-

judicially cancel/suspend enrollment contract.
Requisites:
1) Schedule of tuition fee payment
2) Authority to revoke/cancel/suspend
enrollment contract for non-payment of school
fees
3) Consequence of the revocation of the
enrollment contract
a) Prohibited from attending classes
b) Even entering school campus
 4) Revocation need NOT have PRIOR judicial
permission/authorization
5) Student shall be responsible for whatever
was missed in case of mere suspension of
contract pending payment.
 Need for a FINAL DEMAND
Letter before barring student as
Required by Article 1169 of the
New Civil Code
To summarize:
Steps to justify extra-judicial
cancellation of enrollment contract
 Stipulation in the enrollment contract
 Failure of student/parent to pay in accordance
with schedule of payment
 Student must NOT have been permitted to
stay up to the last month of SY without
paying school fees
 Formal written demand
 Failure to pay the fees despite demand
 This should be included as part of the
Enrollment Form:
“To recognize without reservation, the
authority of (name of school) to bar or not to allow
our child/children from entering the school campus
and attending his/her classes in case we fail to pay
two(2) consecutive installments of the due and
demandable tuition and other school fees as
indicated in the current schedule of payment and
that he/she shall only be re-admitted as soon as the
tuition and other school fees are paid; Provided
however, that our child will solely responsible in
keeping up with the lessons, assignments and taking
examinations given during the school days our child
was not allowed to enter and attend classes.”
 SECOND: Not to Allow to Take Major
Examinations
Requisites:
 Policy made known to parents/students before
enrollment
 A formal letter demand to pay, otherwise the
student shall not be allowed to take examinations
However…

Section 99, MRPHEI–

Denial of Final Examinations; Withholding of
Grades; and Refusal to Re-Enroll. No higher
education institution shall deny final examinations to
a student who has outstanding financial or property
obligations, xxx.
Paragraph 119, Manual of Information for Private
Schools (6th Edition 1960)
“This Office disapproves the practice of
excluding from the final examinations students who
have been permitted to remain in school up to the
last month of the school year or term without having
settled their financial obligations.”
Question:
If student pays after scheduled exam/test, is
there obligation to give special or make-up
exam/test?

Answer: YES
Reasons:
2) Giving test/examination is obligation of school
arising from enrollment contract. Hence, student
performed obligation incumbent upon him, school
should perform its parts.
3) No exam/test – no grade or low grade. This shall
violate Section 79 of MRPS and Section 16.5 of
Education Act of 1982.
 V. Violation of School Rules of
Conduct

Constitutional basis of school’s duty to

discipline:
“All educational institutions shall teach the
rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical
and spiritual values, develop moral character and
personal discipline xxx.” (Art. XIV, Sec. 3(2))
Hence, the Supreme Court declared in MCFI vs. CA–

“Incidentally, the school NOT only has the right BUT

the duty to develop discipline in its students, The
Constitution no less imposes such duty.”
Sections 74, 102 and 131 mandates for the
following–

1) Who must discipline students; and

2) Extent of duty to discipline students
Question:
Who must discipline student? Who are
DUTY BOUND to exercise discipline over
students?
Answer:
All school personnel – Academic or Non-
Academic – All personnel therefore have the duty to:
a) Teach Discipline;
b) Prevent misconduct from being committed;
c) Report to authorities students’ misconduct
Question:
What are the basic reasons for
the need of school discipline?
Answer:

1) To establish and maintain order in school

campus
 Legal Responsibility of Schools

In PSBC vs. CA –
“Institutions of learning must also meet the
implicit or “built-in” obligations of providing their
students with an atmosphere that promotes or
assists in attaining its primary undertaking of
imparting knowledge.”
 Certainly, no student can absorb the
intricacies of physics or higher
mathematics or explore the realm of the
arts and other sciences when bullets are
flying or grenades exploding in the air or
where there looms around the school
premises a constant threat to life and limb.
Necessarily, the school must ensure that
adequate steps are taken to maintain
peace and order within the campus
premises and to prevent the breakdown
thereof.
Question:
How far does the school’s authority to
maintain school discipline among its community
members, particularly its students, extend?
Answer:
It is undisputed that the school can
discipline its community members within the
school campus during class hours.
Whether that authority applies even outside
of the school premises and class hours, the
Supreme Court said –
 “xxx It is the better view that there are instances
when the school might be called upon to exercise its
power over its students xxx for acts committed
outside the school and beyond school hours in the
following:
b) In cases of violations of school policies or
regulations occurring in connection with a school-
sponsored activity off-campus;
c) In cases where the misconduct of the student
involves his status as a student or affects the good
name or reputation of the school.”
 Therefore when students misbehave
outside the campus and the misconduct
complained of directly affects the offender’s
status as a suitable member of that
community, there is no reason why schools
may not impose disciplinary sanctions on
him.
 Now, the MORPHE (Section 102) provides
that authority to discipline students outside the
campus and beyond school hours when:
2) Where the school policies or regulations were
violated; and
3) Where the misconduct involves or affects a
student’s status or the good name and
reputation of the school.
 Imposition of Disciplinary Action

Section 75, MRPS, Sec. 104, MORPHE and Sec. 133,

TVET Manual –

“xxx School officials and academic personnel

shall have the right to impose appropriate and
reasonable disciplinary measures for minor offenses xxx
provided, that no cruel or physically harmful punishment
shall be imposed xxx.”
NOTE:
Only Administrators and Academic
Personnel (Teachers) may impose the
SANCTIONS NOT Non-Academic.
Question:
What if PARENTS of student
commit misconduct INSIDE school
campus? Can school IMPOSE appropriate
penalties?
Answer:
YES. Parents are members of school
community (Sec. 6, BP 232). As such, the
Supreme Court declared –
“xxx the right to establish and enforce
reasonable rules and regulations (in school)
extends as well to parents xxx as parents are
under a social and moral (if not legal) obligation
individually and collectively to assist and
cooperate with the schools.” (Yap Chin Fah, et al.
vs. CA, Dec. 12, 1989)
 I. Legality of Sanctions for
Minor Offenses

Question:
Can teachers legally require erring students
to do something against their will as a penalty for
breach of discipline?
Answer:
The law does not authorize the imposition of
personal force or coercion upon a person to
constrain him/her to perform acts against his/her
will. For to allow that would be a violation of the
constitutional prohibition against involuntary
servitude. Thus, a student of majority age may not
be subjected to such a sanction.
 However, minor students who have
not been emancipated from parental
authority fall under partia potestas and
therefore “are obliged to obey their parents
so long as they are under parental power,
and to observe respect and reverence
toward them always.”
 It follows that since special parental
authority is vested in school authorities
and teachers, they (the authorities and
teachers) may require minor students to
fulfill certain obligations against their will
 II. Major/Serious Offences

Section 76, MRPS, Sec. 105, MORPHE and Sec.

134, TVET provide –
“When the offense committed is serious xxx
the school head shall cause the filling of xxx
administrative action against the erring xxx
student.”
NOTE:
Only school administration/head shall
initiate disciplinary action and authorize imposition
of penalty/sanction.
 Authorized Penalty

MORPHE, Section 106 (Sec. 77, MRPS and Sec.

135, TVET) provides –
a) Suspension;
b) Non-readmission;
c) Exclusion; and
d) Expulsion
Common characteristics of the sanctions –
1) They are for grave offenses;
2) They may be imposed by school
head/administration only;
3) They deny/deprive the students’ right to
continued receipt of quality education; and
4) They may be imposed only after
compliance with DUE PROCESS.
 Part III
Labor Laws in Private Schools
 Pre-Employment

Q: Is a health certificate issued by the

city/municipal health officer of the locality where the
school is located a pre-employment requirement?

A: Yeas. As provided by the Rules and

Regulations Implementing PD 856, the Code on
Sanitation of the Philippines:
 No person shall be employed in any achool
without first securing a health certificate from the
city/municipal health officer of the locality where
the establishment is located.
Health certificates are non-transferable and shall
be renewed annually (Sec. 11).
 I. Classification of School Personnel

A. ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
a. Teaching
 School personnel who are formally engaged in
actual teaching service or in research
assignments, either on full-time or part-time
b. Non-Teaching
 Personnel that posses certain prescribed
academic functions directly supportive of
teaching such as:
• Registrars
• Librarians
• Guidance counselors
• Other similar persons
• Industrial and job placement coordinators
• Officials responsible for technical education and
skills development matters

(MRPS, Section 4 (m) No. 4 (c); Sec. 5 (20) and 39, MORPHE
and TVET, Sec. 4 (18), par. (c) (iii)
B. NON-ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
School personnel usually engaged in
administrative functions who are not covered under
the definition of academic personnel. They may
include school officials.

(MRPS, Section 4 (m) No. 4 (d); Sec. 39, MORPHE and TVET,
Sec. 4 (18), par. (c) (iv)
Sections 5 (20) and 39 MORPHE also
classifies –
Institutional Officials – officers
including academic personnel who are
occupying supervisory positions involved in
implementation of school policies.
II. Significance Of Distinction / Classification

Section 89, MRPS, Sec. 114, MORPHE and Sec. 73,

TVET –

“In recognition of their special employment status

and their special role in the advancement of knowledge,
the employment of teaching and non-teaching academic
personnel shall be governed by such rules as may from
time to time be promulgated in coordination with one
another by the DepEd (CHED or TESDA) and the DOLE.”
 Conditions of employment of non-
academic non-teaching school personnel
xxx shall be governed by the appropriate
labor laws and regulations.
BP 232, Section 32 –
“In private schools, disputes from
employer-employee relations shall fall under
the jurisdiction of DOLE xxx. Provided, that
in view of the special employment status of
teaching and academic personnel and their
special role in the advancement of
knowledge/ standards set or promulgated
JOINTLY by DepEd/CHED/TESDA/DOLE
shall be applied by DOLE xxx.”
 III. Employment Status: Probationary
Personnel
A. ON PROBATION
a. Probationary Employee
 One who is on trial by the school during which the
institution determines whether or not he is qualified
for regular employment.
b. Probationary Period
 “Probationary” as used to describe the period of
employment implies the purpose of the term or
period, but not its length.
c. Duration of Probationary Employment
• Academic Personnel
1) Formal Education
 Basic Education
- 3 consecutive school years
(Sec. 92, MRPS)
 Tertiary Education
- 6 consecutive semesters
- 9 consecutive semesters
(Section 117, MORPHE)
 Probationary Period: Is three (3)
school years, NOT calendar years!
Supreme Court declaration in Colegio
San Agustin vs. NLRC, et al. that “xxx
law speaks of three (3) calendar years
and NOT three (3) school year” NO
LONGER APPLIES
ii) Non-Academic Personnel

Labor Code: Article 281 –

“Probationary employment shall not exceed six
(6) months from the date the employee started
working x x x.”
If PART-TIME “x x x should become regular
status after working for the total number of hours or
days, respectively, which completes a 6-month
probationary period of a worker in the same job
under normal circumstances.”
 IV. Security of Tenure
ii) PROBATIONARY PERSONNEL
Meaning of SECURIITY OF TENURE – the employer
shall not terminate the services of an employee except for
a just cause or when authorized by law.

E. Security of Tenure of Probationary Academic Personnel

Unless otherwise provided by contract, school
academic personnel who are under probationary
employment cannot be dismissed during applicable
probationary period.
 Cases of Termination: Probationary
Teachers
Biboso vs. Victoria Milling Co., Inc. (76 SCRA 250)

“The moment, however, the period expired in

accordance with contracts freely entered into, they
could no longer invoke the constitutional protection.
“Thereafter, the parties are free to renew the
contracts or not. In the instant case where the petitioner
did not wish to renew the contract of employment for
the next school year, the complainant was not illegally
dismissed. Her contract merely expired. (Colegio San
Agustin)”
 It should be stressed that the
probationary contract must stipulate the
period of effectivity, otherwise it shall remain
in force for the three (3) years probationary
period.
NOTE:

To be VALID and BINDING upon the employee,

the CONTRACT must be agreed to, expressed by
SIGNING the CONTRACT. If the CONTRACT is
NOT signed, it is deemed NOT ENFORCEABLE.
 B. Security of Tenure of Probationary Non-
academic Personnel
Article 281 of Labor Code provides –
“The service of an employee who has been engaged
on a probationary basis may be terminated –
a) for just cause; or
b) when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in
accordance with reasonable standards made known to
the employee at the time of his engagement.”
 Resume of Distinctions in Law Between Probationary
Academic Personnel and Probationary Non-academic

Probationary Academic Probationary Non-

Academic
As to duration 3 consecutive Sys or 6/9 6 months only
of maximum consecutive semester (Formal)
probationary or 4/8 consecutive semester
period (TecVoc)

As to the Does NOT apply. Consolidated Part-time becomes

applicability to Order No. 1 provides that regular after working
part-time PART-TIME never acquire for a number of days
personnel regular status. Hence, NO which completes 6-
PROBATIONARY months
EMPLOYMENT. Personnel
must be full-time.
C. Regular or Permanent Status

Section 93, MRPS –

“Regular or Permanent Status. – Those who
have served the probationary period shall be made
regular or permanent. Full-time teachers who have
satisfactorily completed their probationary period
shall be considered regular or permanent.”
Section 118, MORPHE –
Regular or Permanent Status. – A full-time
academic teaching personnel who has
satisfactorily completed his/her probationary
employment, and who possesses the minimum
qualifications required by the Commission and the
institution, shall acquire a regular or permanent
status if he/she is re-hired or re-appointed
immediately after the end of his/her probationary
employment.
Section 77, TVET Manual –
“Regular or Permanent Status. – Those who
have served the probationary period shall be made
regular or permanent. Full-time teachers who have
satisfactorily completed their probationary period
shall be considered regular or permanent. Part-
time teachers shall not acquire regular or
permanent status.”
The Supreme Court in Lacuesta vs. ADMU (477
SCRA 217, Dec. 9, 2005) answered in the
NEGATIVE –
“Completing the probationary period does not
automatically qualify her t become a permanent
employee xxx. Consistent with academic freedom
and constitutional autonomy, a (school) ha the
prerogative to provide standards for its teachers
and determine whether theses standards have
been met. At the end of the probationary period,
the decision to re-hire an employee on probation
belongs to the university xxx.”
a. Regular Employment of Academic Personnel
Above provisions mandate three (3) requisites
for private schools academic personnel to acquire
permanent / regular status –
1) The teacher must be a full-time teacher;
2) The teacher must have completed the
probationary periods; and
3) Such service must have been satisfactory
1) Full-time teaching or academic personnel are
those meeting all the following requirements:
i) Who possess at least the minimum academic
qualifications prescribed by the DepEd the
CHED for Tertiary and TESDA.
ii) Who are paid monthly or hourly, based on
the normal or regular teaching loads as
provided for in the policies, rules and standards of
the agency concerned.
 iii) Whose regular working day
or not more than 8 hours a day is
devoted to the school; and
iv) Who are not teaching full-
time in any other educational
institution.
 All teaching or academic personnel who do not
meet the foregoing qualifications are considered
PART-TIME.
Reiterated in Section 117, MORPHE – “A part-
time employee cannot acquire regular xxx hence
may be terminated when a qualified teacher
becomes available.”
i) Possess minimum academic qualifications
• These qualification are mandated by law,
rules and regulations of DepEd, CHED or
TESDA.
• These qualifications CANNOT be WAIVED,
even by agreement between School and the
Academic Personnel or as stipulated in the
CBA.
• Sec. 118, MORPHE – “xxx who possess the
minimum qualifications required by the
Commission and the institution xxx.”
“xxx educational institutional are
impressed with public interest xxx are under
the control and supervision of the State. xxx
Squarely, all laws, rules and regulation
governing educational institutions are
MANDATORY in character and shall be strictly
complied with. Any waiver to this effect will be
against public policy. xxx (For) xxx it will xxx
open the door to the employment of direful low
quality and inefficient faculty xxx.”
 The Supreme Court in Aklan College Inc. vs.
Guariño (530 SCRA 41, Aug. 14, 2007), ruled
that the fact that respondent was retained as
acting dean for 17 years did NOT give him a
vested right to occupy in a permanent capacity x
NOT being a master’s degree holder, he was
never and could never have been appointed in a
permanent capacity, as, he is not qualified under
the law.”
 Minimum Qualifications

• Dean
 For undergraduate degree programs
• A holder of master’s degree;
• Within at least five (5) years of satisfactory
teaching experience; and
• At least two (2) years of satisfactory
managerial experience
 For graduate degree programs
• A holder of an appropriate doctoral
degree; and
• Has published research works

However, in specific field (undergraduate degree

programs) where there is death of holders of
master’s degree, a holder of a professional
license may be qualified as Dean. (Sec. 33,
MORPHE)
(2) Principal
• A holder of master’s degree; and
• Within at least five (5) years of relevant
teaching or administrative experience
(Section 42, MRPS)
(3) Registrar
• A holder of bachelor’s degree; and
• Within at least five (3) years of training or
experience in handling student academic
records and related school work (Section
42, MRPS, Sec. 34, MORPHE, Sec. 68,
TVET)
 For Secondary Education
For academic subjects:
• A holder of a bachelor’s degree in
secondary education or is equivalent; and
• With at least eighteen (18) units of
professional education subjects. (Section
44, MRPS)
For technical subjects:
• A holder of any four-year college degree
with knowledge/competence of the
technical course he has to teach; or
• College undergraduate with training
experience; or
• Vocationally trained or experienced
person (Section 44, MRPS)
 For undergraduate degree programs
• A holder of master’s degree to teach
mainly in his/her major field;
• For professional courses, a holder of
master’s degree and a holder of
appropriate professional license requiring
at least a bachelor’s degree may be
qualified. (Section 35, MORPHE)
 For graduate degree programs
• For Master’s Program – there shall be at
least one (1) full-time faculty who is a
holder of a doctoral degree and at least
three (3) full-time faculty who are master’s
degree holders in the discipline.
• For Professional Master’s Program – a
holder of at least a professional master’s
degree.
ii) Regular Working Day is DEVOTED to the School
In UST vs. NLRC and Basilio E. Borja, the Supreme
Court ruled –
“It cannot be said that respondent’s total working
day was devoted to the school alone. It is clear from
the record that he was practicing his profession as a
doctor and maintaining a clinic xxx during the time
that he was given a teaching load. In other words, he
had another regular remunerative work aside from
teaching. His total working days was not, therefore,
devoted to the school.
 “The private respondent, therefore could not
be regarded as full-time teacher in any aspect.
He could not be regarded as such because his
total working was not devoted to the school

xxx xxx

“In view of the explicit provisions of MRPS

xxx and the fact that the (teacher was not full-
time, he could not have and did not become a
permanent employee even after the completion
of three (3) years of service.)”
Section 119, MORPHE –

Regular Teaching Load. The regular teaching

load of full-time academic teaching personnel shall
be determined by the higher education institution but
in no case shall exceed 24 units per semester or
term.
iii) Non Teaching Full-Time in Any Other School

Rationale:

Because no instruction can be effectively given over

a prolonged period if teachers carry an unusually
heavy teaching load.
• May full-time teachers teach part-time in another
school?
YES – but their part-time schedule should not conflict
with their regular hours of work in the school they are
full-time,
AND
the total number of teaching load (Full-load plus the
part-time load) does NOT exceed MAXIMUM
teaching load assignment FIXED by government
rules.
• May a school prohibit a full-time faculty from
teaching part-time elsewhere?

YES. Said policy of prohibition must have been made

known to the teachers before engaging them on a
full-time service.
2) Probationary Service Completed means –
i) Probationary service completed must be
consecutive years or semester of full-time work.
• “Years” refers to “School Years” not to
“calendar years”
NOTE:
Assignment of teaching load during summer term
immediately after 3rd year, 6th or 9th semester of
teaching does NOT qualify implied regular
appointment.
Effects of Reversion From Full-time to Part-time
Status of Academic Personnel

In the case of A. Bongar vs. NLRC & AMA

Computer College, a complaint for illegal dismissal
was filed by a teacher when his contract of
employment was not renewed.
 “xxx to revert as what happened to
the complainant herein an originally full-
time status to mere part-time basis to
prevent in any way the incumbent
teacher from becoming regular, a subtle
way of circumventing the Labor Code
provisions on probationary employment.”
(Underscoring supplied)
 In the more recent case entitled National Mines
and Allied Workers Union (NAMAWU) et al. vs. San
Ildefonso College, et al., where the question of status
of a full-time teacher who herself requested to teach
on part-time basis was raised, the Supreme Court
upheld the permanent status of the teacher and
rejected the school’s contention that she had lost her
permanent status when she requested to teach on a
part-time basis to pursue a master’s degree.
OPINION:
The decision of the High Court to uphold the
regular status of the teacher albeit her personal
request to be given part-time load while pursuing her
master’s degree was premised on the fact proven
that her effort to pursue graduate studies would
benefit the school “xxx in terms of higher earning and
experience xxx.”
OPINION:
The decision of the High Court to uphold the
regular status of the teacher albeit her personal
request to be given part-time load while pursuing her
master’s degree was premised on the fact proven
that her effort to pursue graduate studies would
benefit the school “xxx in terms of higher earning and
experience xxx.”
Now, Section 118, MORPHE –
xxx However, a regular or permanent academic
teaching personnel who requests a teaching load
equivalent to a part-time load, shall be considered
resigned, xxx may forfeit his/her regular or
permanent status xxx and shall thereby be covered
by a term-contract employment.
Now, Section 118, MORPHE –
xxx However, a regular or permanent academic
teaching personnel who requests a teaching load
equivalent to a part-time load, shall be considered
resigned, xxx may forfeit his/her regular or
permanent status xxx and shall thereby be covered
by a term-contract employment.
ISSUE:
Is OVERLOAD, OVERTIME work that requires
payment of OVERTIME PAY
ANSWER:
DOLE-DECS-CHED-TESDA Order No. 2, s.
1996 states –
“Overload partakes of the nature of temporary
extra assignment and compensation therefore shall
be considered as an OVERLOAD HONORARIUM if
performed beyond the eight-hours daily work is
OVERTIME WORK.”
Section 120, par. (2), MORPHE –
“xxx Overload partakes of the nature of
temporary extra assignment and compensation
therefore shall be considered as an overload
honorarium if performed within the 8-hour work
period and does not form part of the regular or basic
pay. Overload performed beyond the eight-hour daily
work is overtime work.
ISSUE:
OVERLOAD pay part of 13TH MONTH PAY?
ANSWER:
Overload assignments represents extra work for
teachers and the compensation they receive therefor
is extra pay. This is a wage supplement that can in
no way be considered part of the regular or basic
salary, even if the overload is taken on during the
normal –hour workday.
Therefore, overtime pay and premium pay are
excluded from the computation of the 13th month pay
since, like overload pay, these are considered
additional compensation.
 Again, in Letran Calamba Faculty and
Employees Assn. vs. NLRC, the Supreme
Court explained the peculiarity of teacher’s
overload pay which while considered as
salary may not be considered as part of a
teacher’s regular or basic salary.
FOURTH: Every pregnant private school employee,
whether married or unmarried, is entitled to
maternity leave.
Requisites for entitlement –
1) Must be member of SSS at time of delivery;
2) Must have notified SSS of her availment
through employer;
3) Employers must have paid at least three (3)
monthly contributions within the 12-month period
preceding the semester of child birth.
Amount of Benefit: 100% of average daily salary for
60 days or 78 in case of caesarean delivery.
FIFTH: Every married male employee of the school
is entitled to a paternity leave with pay.

RA 8187 – Paternity benefit is seven (7) days with

full pay

Conditions:
1) First four (4) deliveries
2) Of legitimate spouse with whom he is
cohabiting
3) Must inform employer of pregnancy and
expected date of delivery
g. Special Working Conditions for Private School
Teachers
The following working conditions are applicable
only to the teaching academic personnel of private
schools:
 No compulsory assignments unrelated to teaching
duties
A teacher’s duties normally include: (1) class-room
teaching; (2) co-curricular activities; (3) research;
and (4) community service (although he is actually
paid only by the subject hour or per unit taught).
 Prohibition against unusually heavy teaching
loads
Because no instruction can be effectively given
over a prolonged period if teachers carry an
unusually heavy teaching load (or must deal with
inordinate subject preparations), schools cannot
compel teachers to handle teaching loads in excess
of the maximum prescribed by DepEd, CHED or the
TESDA.
NOTE:
“x x x it is clear from the above cited section that
the number of teaching load assigned to regular
faculty members is HORTATORY (urging on with
advise) and NOT MANDATORY and therefore may
be determined by the school.”

Dr. Esther Garcia, Chair, CHED

(Letter to CEAP, 18 Dec. 2000
Note that in Section 119, MORPHE –
“The regular teaching load of full-time
academic teaching personnel shall be
determined by the higher education
institution but in no case shall exceed 24
units per semester or term.”
 Causes of
TERMINATION
[A] Failure to Obtain Professional License

Sec. 27, RA 7836 –

“No person shall practice x x x teaching
profession x x x without license.”

PRC Resolution No. 600 s. 1997 –

“Those who fail to register by
September 20, 2000 shall forfeit their
privilege to practice teaching x x x.”
[B] Violation of Code of Ethics For
Professional Teachers

Article XII, Section 1 –

“Any violation x x x
shall be sufficient
ground for the x x x
revocation of x x x
license x x x ”
Article 6, Section 6 (Code of Ethics for
Professional Teachers)

“A teacher who accepts a position

assumes a contractual obligation to live up
to his contract, assuming full knowledge of
the employment terms and conditions.”
 [D] Absences/Tardiness

 to be considered
valid causes for
termination under
Section 94 of
MRPS, Section 78
of TVET Manual
and Article 283 of
the Labor Code,
absences and
tardiness must be
habitual and
inexcusable.
ISSUE:
When is there “HABITUALITY” in the absences
and tardiness?
ANSWER:
1) School policy may fix a maximum number of
absences or tardiness, in excess of which shall be
considered as ‘habitual’ and hence, if also
inexcusable, shall be tantamount to inefficiency and
incompetence.
N.B.
• Policy must be made known to all personnel
concerned
• The maximum number must be reasonable.
2) In the absence of an existing school policy, the
maximum number of absences for students as
provided for in Section 73 of MRPS may be
applicable.
REASON:
Rule in Section 73 is based on the
presumption that a student needs to attend at least
80% of class days or hours to complete the course.
Hence, if a teacher incurs absences of more
than 20% of his class hours, then the teacher failed
to complete the course. Such is incompetence in
its HIGHEST FORM.
ISSUE:
What if the frequency of absences is “Habitual” in
character but EXCUSABLE? Can teacher be
terminated?

ANSWER:
Supreme Court said –
“A working mother who has to frequently absent
because she has also to take care of her child may also
be removed because of her poor attendance, xxx
however, the award of separation pay would be
sustained under the social justice xxx.” (PLDT vs.
NLRC, 164 SCRA 671)
Rene P. Valiao vs. CA, NLRC and Westerm Negros
College, G.R. No. 146621, July 30, 2004

Supreme Court declared –

“Repeated acts of absences without leave and

frequent tardiness reflect an indifferent attitude to
and lack of motivation in his work.”
 [E] ABANDONMENT
(absence from work and deliberate intent to discontinue to return)

Two (2 ) Requisites
a) Absences without authority
b) Intention not to return
How to declare ABANDONMENT?

Two (2) Letter Principle

As soon as a teacher starts to
incur absences continuously without
official leave or authority—

 send 1st letter requiring him to report

immediately and explain;
AND
 send 2nd letter informing him of
termination due to abandonment.
 [F] Neglect of Duty
Neglect is defined as the failure to carry out an
expected or required action through carelessness or
by intention.
As a rule, “Neglect of Duty”, to be ground for
termination, must be both GROSS and HABITUAL.
• Single or isolated acts of negligence do not
constitute just cause for dismissal
• But if the negligent act results to substantial
loss/damage to property or injury to person,
habituality is NOT necessary to justify dismissal
 Failure to Exercise Parental Responsibility
“The school, its administrators and teachers, or the
individual, entity or institution engaged in child care shall
have special parental authority and responsibility over
the minor child while under their supervision, instruction
or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all
authorized activities whether inside or outside the
premises of the school, entity or institution.” (Art. 218,
Family Code)
“A teacher shall recognize that the interest and
welfare of learners are his first and foremost concern,
and shall handle each learner justify and impartially.”
(Art. VII, Sec.2)
 Clearly, a teacher or school personnel
required to exercise special parental
responsibility but who fails to observe all the
diligence of a good father of a family in the
custody and care of the pupils and students,
shall be held liable for gross neglect of duty.
Parental Responsibility

The student while in school, is in the

custody and hence, the responsibility of the
school authorities as long as he is under the
control and influence of the school, whether
the semester has not yet begun or has
already ended.
 School of the Holy Spirit of Quezon City vs.
Tagulam (558 SCRA 223), 14 July 2008

FACTS: Tagulam was the Class Adviser of

Grade 5- Esmeralda. The principal authorized the
celebration of the class’ year-end activity and
allowed the pupils to use the swimming pool. In this
connection, the school distributed the
parent’s/guardian’s permit forms to the pupils.
Despite her permit form being unsigned,
Tagulam allowed Chiara Mae Federico to join the
activity.
 During the activity, two students
sneaked out and Tagulam went after them.
Unfortunately, while Tagulam was away,
Chiara Mae drowned and subsequently died.
ISSUE: Whether or not Tagulam’s
Dismissal on the ground of gross negligence
(but without the element of habituality)
resulting to loss of trust and confidence,
valid?
 RULING:
Gross negligence implies a want or absence of
or a failure to exercise slight care or diligence, or
the entire absence of care.
Tagulam had been grossly negligent. First, it is
undisputed that Chiara Mae’s permit form was
unsigned. Yet, respondent allowed her to join the
activity because she assumed that Chiara Mae’s
mother has allowed her to join it by personally
bringing her to the school with her packed lunch
and swimsuit.
 Second, it was respondent’s responsibility as Class
Adviser to supervise her class in all activities sanctioned
by the school.
Notably, respondent’s negligence, although gross,
was not habitual. In view of the considerable resultant
damage, however, we are in agreement that the cause
is sufficient to dismiss respondent. This is not the first
time that we have departed from the requirements laid
down by the law that neglect of duties must both gross
and habitual. Indeed, the sufficiency of the evidence as
well as the resultant damage to the employer should be
considered in the dismissal of the employees. In this
case, the damage went as far as claiming the life of a
child.
 Unreasonable Delay to Submit Students’ Grades
A teacher should be held answerable for failure
to submit his/her students’ grades or reports on
performance on time in accordance with the
reasonable deadline issued by the school
administration.
The Education Act of 1982 mandates that
teachers shall “(r)ender regular reports on
performance of each student and to the latter and
the latter’s parents or guardians with specific
suggestions for improvement.”
Section 121 (3), MORPHE –

“xxx unreasonable delay in the

submission of student grades.”
 In the recent case of University of the East vs.
Romeo A. Jader, the Supreme Court, in no
uncertain terms, declared –

“The court takes judicial notice of the traditional

practice in educational institutions wherein the
professor (teacher) directly furnishes his/her students
their grades. It is the contractual obligation of the
school (through the teachers) to TIMELY INFORM
AND FURNISH sufficient notice and information to
each and every student as to whether he/she had
already complied with all the requirements (in a
subject).”
 “x x x The negligent act of a (teacher)
who fails to observe the rules of the school,
for instance, by not promptly submitting a
student’s grade is not only imputable to the
teacher but is an act of the school being
his/her employer x x x.”
 Giving Failing Students Passing Grades
They Did Not Deserve

Section 79 of the MRPS provides that

the final grade or rating given to a pupil or
student in a subject should be based solely
on his scholastic performance.
 Thus, it is not a matter of discretion on the
part of the teachers in the giving of the students’
grades, but rather it is a clear obligation for the
teachers to determine student academic marks
solely based on scholastic performance. For a
teacher to do otherwise, (i.e. to give a grade not
based on the students’ scholastic performance),
would undoubtedly be tantamount to serious
academic malpractice or grave misconduct in the
performance of his/her duties.
 Influencing a Co-Faculty to Change Grade
In the case of Wilfredo T. Padilla vs. NLRC and
San Beda College, the Supreme Court said –

“This Court is convinced that the pressure and

influence exerted by petitioner on his colleague to
change a failing grade to a passing one, xxx
constitute serious misconduct, which is a valid
ground for dismissing an employee.”
 However, in the case of NLRC, St. Jude
Catholic School, et al. vs. Bernadette Salgarino,
(G.R. No. 164376, July 3, 2006) –
“To our mind, the acts of the respondent in increasing
the marks and indicating passing grades on the white
sheets of her students while she was on maternity leave;
xxx of making the increases in the grades of the students
during her maternity leave which is not allowed since the
substitute teachers were the ones authorized to compute
and give the grades for the concerned students; and of
invoking humanitarian consideration in doing so which is
not a basis in the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools for grading a student, are all acts of transgression
of school rules, regulations and policies;
Section 121 (1) & (7), MORPHE –
“1) xxx contracting loans from students or
parents; xxx”
xxx
“7) The sale of tickets or collection of any
contributions in any form or for any purpose or
project whatsoever, whether voluntary or
otherwise, from students and school personnel;
 Contracting Loans from Students/Parents

“With respect to the second, please be

informed that the Department considers the act of
teachers in “x x x contracting loans from parents
of their student x x x” not only a serious
misconduct based on Art. 282 (a) of the Labor
Code, but is likewise a violation of a student’s
right “x x x to be free from involuntary contribution
x x x” (Sec . 9 (9) of BP 232)”
Usec. Antonio E.B. Nachura
 Refusal to Relinquish Teaching as Required
by School Administration

In Cruz vs. Medina, a faculty who rose from the

rank to the Deanship, but refused to relinquish her
teaching load even after accepting the Dean’s
position and required to by Administration the
Supreme Court stated –

“x x x Considering the fact that she was

holding a managerial position, her refusal to abide
by the lawful orders of her employers would lead
to the erosion of the trust and confidence reposed
on her.”
 But failing in love with student or co-teacher,
not grave misconduct.
In Chua-Qua vs. Clave, Supreme Court said –
“If the two eventually fell in love, despite the
disparity in their ages and academic levels, this
only leads substance to the truism that the heart
has reasons of its own which reasons does not
know xxx.”
N.B. This ruling is no longer applicable if student is
still a MINOR. Remember MALTO ruling.