Raymond Son v.
University of Santo Tomas In 2010, CHED released a memorandum addressing the
Decision
This Petition for Review on Certiorari seeks to set aside
September 27, 2013 Decision of the CA.
FACTS:
Respondent UST is an educational institution operating under
the authority of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).
The rest of the respondents are impleaded as officers and
administrators of the school.
Petitioners Son and Anitola were hired in June 2005, while
Pollarco was employed earlier or in June 2004. These
petitioners were faculty members with probationary status
until all the requirements provided under UST rules including
the possession of a graduate degree before the expiration of
the probationary period which is within 5 semesters from the
date of hiring.
The requirement of having a graduate degree for an
undergraduate teaching load has been imposed upon faculty
members since 1992 in the manual for private schools under
DECS (Department of Education, Culture and Sports), and
CHED’s 2008 Memorandum Order 04-08.
The petitioners were hired by UST without the said
requirement in the condition that they will finish their master’s
degree, but petitioners failed so. Yet, they continued to teach
beyond their probationary period.
minimum requirement of a graduate degree for faculty
members and the same was sent as a memorandum by UST to
its faculty members ceasing to re-appoint those who have not
met such requirement but if they are already due for their
thesis or defense may write an appeal for consideration. On
June 11, 2010, they received a thank you and termination letter
signed by the dean of their college for the reason that they have
not finished their graduate degree. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are liable for unfair
labor practice, illegal dismissal and recovery of money claims?
HELD: No.
UST Faculty CBA expressed explicitly their vested tenure for
those without a master’s degree and served at least 6
semesters in the university. It was not illegal for the university
to dismiss the petitioners for not meeting the minimum
requirements. The probationary status also gives the university
the right to dismiss anyone who cannot comply with the
requirements stated in the contract when they were hired.
Also, UST enjoys academic freedom and is protected from
Section 5(2), Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution giving the
university its freedom to decide within its authority. Hence,
reversing the decision of the Labor Arbiter. SC Decision in favor
of the petitioners in toto.