UE v. Pepanio and Bueno

Facts:

DECS issued the Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools which requires college faculty members to have a master's degree as a minimum educational qualification for acquiring regular status.

UE and the UE Faculty Association executed a CBA which provided that UE shall extend only semester-to-semester appointments to college faculty staffs who did not possess the minimum qualifications. Those with such qualifications shall be given probationary appointments and their performance on a full-time or full-load basis shall be reviewed for four semesters.

Bueno and Analiza F. Pepanio were hired by UE both on a semester-to-semester basis to teach in its college because they lacked postgraduate degrees.

In 2001 UE and the UE Faculty Association entered into a new CBA that would have the school extend probationary full-time appointments to full-time faculty members who did not yet have the required postgraduate degrees provided that the latter comply with such requirement within their probationary period. The CBA granted UE, however, the option to replace these appointees during their probationary period if a qualified teacher becomes available at the end of the semester.

UE extended probationary appointments to respondents Bueno and Pepanio. Two years later in October 2003, the Dean of the UE College of Arts and Sciences, petitioner Eleanor Javier, sent notices to probationary faculty members, reminding them of the expiration of the probationary status of those lacking in postgraduate qualification by the end of the first semester.

Respondents filed cases of illegal dismissal against the school before the Labor Arbiter’s office. The case was granted.

UE appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Bueno and Pepanio questioned the timeliness of the appeal to the NLRC. They pointed to the postmaster’s certification that its office received the mail containing the LA’s Decision on March 17, 2005 and "informed the Office of Atty. Mison right away but they only got the letter on April 4, 2005." Bueno and Pepanio claim that the 10-day period for appeal should be counted from March 22, 2005, five days after the postmaster’s first notice to Atty. Mison to claim his mail.

NLRC Third Division set aside the LA Decision.

CA reinstated the LA’s Decision by reason of technicality.

Issue:

Whether or not UE filed a timely appeal to the NLRC from the Decision of the LA

Held:

For completeness of service by registered mail, the reckoning period starts either (a) from the date of actual receipt of the mail by the addressee or (b) after five days from the date he received the first notice from the postmaster. There must be a conclusive proof, however, that the registry notice was received by or at least served on the addressee before the five-day period begins to run.

Here, the records fail to show that Atty. Mison in fact received the alleged registry notice from the post office on March 22, 2005 that required him to claim his mail. Respondents have not presented a copy of the receipt evidencing that notice. The Court has no choice but to consider the registry return receipt bearing the date April 4, 2005 which showed the date of Atty. Mison’s receipt of a copy of the LA Decision a conclusive proof of service on that date. Reckoned from April 4, UE filed its appeal to the NLRC on time.

The requirement of a masteral degree for tertiary education teachers is not unreasonable. The operation of educational institutions involves public interest. The government has a right to ensure that only qualified persons, in possession of sufficient academic knowledge and teaching skills, are allowed to teach in such institutions.