FACTS:
In 1978, Evangeline Santos was first hired as a full-time Spanish language teacher. She was on leave of absence from 1992. Upon her return sometime in August 1993, only one class of Spanish was available for her to teach. Thus, for the school year 1993- 1994, she agreed to teach one class of Spanish and four other classes of Filipino. Since it was Santos’s first time to teach Filipino, the school’s administrators observed her
classes for which the results will be summarized in a Classroom Standards Evaluation Forms. October of 1993, the Assistant Principal observed Santos’s Filipino II class. It was noted that she needs improvement in the following criteria: (1) uses effective questioning techniques; (2) punctual and time efficient; (3) states and enforces academic and classroom behavior expectations in a positive manner; and (4) reinforces appropriate behavior. For the school years 1994-1995 (4 classes of Filipino), 1995-1996 (5 classes of Filipino), 1996-1997 (5 classes of Filipino), she indicated that she did not prefer a change of teaching assignment. At certain times, the Assistant Principal would observe Santos’s classes which resulted to more or less the same observations that she needed improvements on as with the first observation. In 1996, her attention was called to the deficiencies in her planning and on the same year she was required to undergo remediation phase of the evaluation process through a Professional Growth Plan. Since the implementation, there was a noticeable improvement it yielded to a positive effect on her performance. But not long after, May of 1996, Santos was advised her Professional Growth Plan had been revised. Thereafter it seemed that the positive reviews of her performance were gradually replaced by renewed concerns on her planning. A series of memo’s were sent calling Santos’s attention about the problem they discovered and expressing frustration at her performance. As a result of which, a letter was sent directing her to explain in writing why her employment should not be terminated for her failure to meet the criteria for improvement and her substandard performance as a teacher. In her reply, she said that the school forced her to teach Filipino, a subject which she had no preparation for. Thereafter, she was informed the school considered her letter as explanation and it will also set a formal administrative investigation. According to the Minutes of the Administrative Investigation, what took place were clarifications as to the specific charge with reference to the letter of explanation. The charge against Santos was gross inefficiency or negligence in the performance of her assigned work. In consequence thereof, she was then told that her employment would cease effective June 7, 1997. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the petitioner.
ISSUES:
1. WON Evangeline Santos was illegally dismissed.
2. WON she is entitled to reinstatement or separation pay with backwages. RULING:
(1) The collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expressly states that termination of employment shall be in accordance with the Labor Code. Article 282 of the Labor Code provides that an employer may terminate an employment for any of the ground mentioned in such section and one of which is gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties. Gross inefficiency falls within the purview of “other causes analogous to the foregoing,” and constitutes therefore, just cause to terminate an employee. “Gross inefficiency” is closely related to “gross neglect,” for both involve specific acts of omission on the part of the employee resulting in damage to the employer or to his business. As such, failure to prescribe such standards of work, or to fulfill reasonable work assignments due to inefficiency may constitute just cause for dismissal. Thus, the actuations of Santos complained of by the petitioners constituted gross and habitual neglect of her duties.
For termination of employment based on just causes, the following are the requirements to constitute due process: (i) a written notice served on the employee specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and giving said employee reasonable opportunity within which to explain his side; (ii) a hearing or conference during which the employee concerned, with the assistance of counsel if he so desires is given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his evidence, or rebut the evidence presented against him; (iii) a written notice of termination served on the employee, indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have been established to justify his termination. As such, in the instant case, the school complied with all the requirements. After a thorough evaluation of Santos’s performance, the school held a series of conferences and meetings with Santos, in order to improve her performance. On March 29, 1996, the school required Santos to undertake a Professional Growth Plan. Thereafter, when the intervention of the school failed to yield any considerable improvement on Santos, the Assistant Principal wrote her a letter on April 10, 1997, which required her to explain in writing within forty-eight (48) hours why her employment should not be terminated. On April 16, 1997, Santos was informed that the administrative investigation would be conducted on April 23, 1997 where she would be given the opportunity to be heard. On April 23, 1997, an administrative investigation was conducted wherein Santos appeared with the assistance of ISAE President. In a letter dated May 29, 1997, the school informed Santos of its decision to terminate her employment on the ground of her failure to meet the standards of the school, which as discussed was tantamount to gross inefficiency. Thus, she was validly dismissed.
(2) In view of the finding that Santos was validly dismissed from employment, she would not ordinarily be entitled to separation pay. An exception to this rule is when the court finds justification in applying the principle of social justice. In the instant case, the court finds equitable and proper the award of separation pay in favor of Santos in view of the length of her service with the school prior to the events that led to the termination of her employment. To recall, she was first employed by the school in 1978 as a Spanish language teacher and no other infraction or administrative case against her was filed by the school. Thus, an award of separation pay equivalent to one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service is awarded in favor of Santos on grounds of equity and social justice.