TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES TEACHERS and
EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATION (TIPTEO) and its member MAGDALENA
T. SALON, Petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Magdalena T. Salon (Salon) was a College Instructor 3 of the
Humanities and Social Science Department (HSSD) of respondent
Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP) and a member of the
Technological Institute of the Philippines Teachers and Employees
Organization (TIPTEO). She commenced employment with the TIP on June
13, 1989.
On October 24, 2000, the TIP received complaints from students claiming
that Salon was collecting ₱1.50 per page for the test paper used in the
subject she was teaching at the time. She reportedly asked her students not
to write on the test papers; these test papers were not returned to the
students after the test. An allegation was made, too, that Salon committed
an anomaly in the grading of her students.
Acting on the written complaints, the TIP – through Ms. Josephine Royer
(Ms. Royer), the school's Assistant Faculty Coordinator – sent Salon a
memorandum dated October 30, 2000 asking her to explain within 72 hours
why she should not be disciplined on the basis of the complaints. 4
Salon answered the charges on October 31, 2000. 5 She explained that she
collected only ₱0.50 for each page of the test papers, which sum she spent
in photocopying the papers; the amount collected was within the limits the
school had set. She admitted that she asked her students not to write on the
test papers because there was no space on these papers where they could
write their answers; it would be preferable to use the test booklets also
provided to the students.
On the alleged grade manipulation, Salon explained that the incident
involved the son of a fellow faculty member who actually failed her subject.
Her fellow faculty member and mother of the student, upon learning of her
son's failing grade, tried to persuade Salon to give her son a passing grade
for fear that the father, if he learned of the failing mark, would harm his son.
Salon claimed that she did not accede to the request; she gave the student a
grade of 6.0 or "dropped" instead of giving him a grade of 5.0 or "failed."
The TIP created a three-man committee to conduct a formal investigation of
the charges.6 The committee called a hearing on November 16, 2000 and
issued the following findings:7
Recommendation:
1. Evidences (sic) show that Ms. M.T. Salon has changed the grade
of Mr. Joseph Florante Manalo. She disregarded the TIP grading
system when she gave a grade of 6.0 (officially dropped) inspite of
the class performance records. She admitted that the grade is 5.0
(failed) but made it 6.0 (officially dropped) which according to her is
'lesser degree of failure' because Mr. Joseph Florante Manalo, is
the son of a co-faculty, Mrs. Elma Manalo in HSSD. She also
changed the entry in the class record. The class record was already
submitted to TIP so that this is already a TIP document.
2. With regards to the printed test questionnaires, Mrs. M.T. Salon
has violated Memorandum No. P-66 SY 1992-1993 by not getting
the approval of the department officer. It is unauthorized selling
which the General Disciplinary Sanctions (Memorandum No. P-2 s.
1999-2000) classifies as a GRAVE offense.
3. The committee recommends the application of the corresponding
sanction as contained in the General Disciplinary Sanctions (Memo
No. P-3 s. 1999-2000) which is dismissal.
4. The recommendation shall take effect only after the approval of
the President.
On December 4, 2000, the office of TIP President Dr. Teresita U. Quirino
notified Salon of the termination of her service as member of the faculty of
HSSD effective thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice.8 The dismissal was
based on the investigation committee's recommendations.
ISSUE : whether or not Magdalena T. Salon was dismissed for a valid
cause?
The Supreme Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE.
The Sale of Papers
The first substantive issue is on the sale of test papers to students. We find it
unfortunate that the tribunals below failed to recognize the appropriate TIP
rule that should govern the situation. Thus, Memorandums Nos. P-22, P-25,
and P-66 have all been invoked. To clear the air, Memorandum No. P-22 is
an issuance on August 4, 1988 on the subject: Mimeographed Examinations
whose relevant terms provide:39
There have been complaints received by this office that a number of
teachers have been abusing the use of printed test materials to the
detriment of the students:
1. A certain teacher uses the same printed matter in all of his
classes and charges each student P1.00. This printed test material
is only one page.
2. Some teachers are having printed examinations for which they
charge the students exhorbitantly.
xxx
To correct these practices we have several suggestions:
xxx
3. Faculty members who have no other recourse but to print their
examinations should ask for the permission of their Faculty
Coordinator, Department Head or Dean before they sell such
examination papers to students.
4. The cost of the stenciled examination paper should be
determined by the Faculty Coordinator, Department Head and
Dean by presenting the official receipts or the cost of printing. More
or less, the cost per page should be for Newsprint paper – P0.40
and Whitewove paper – P0.60.
For your guidance and strict compliance effective this semester SY 1988-89.
We quote this Memorandum in full because it indicates the concern that the
school sought to address in coming out with a regulation, which concern is
exactly the cause for the students’ complaints. The Memorandum stresses,
too, that an approval process had been in place as early as 1989.
Memorandum No. P-25 issued in 2000-2001 is on the subject of
PHOTOCOPY CENTER, "created with the major task of servicing students
on their handout requirements" and "shall be limited to required handout
instructional materials assigned by faculty members and will not include
other photocopy needs of the students."40 Apparently, this Memorandum
addresses its own objectionable practice and is very specific on the concern
it addresses – handout instructional materials.
Memorandum No. P-66 issued on April 23, 1993 is on the subject of
"UNAUTHORIZED BOOKBINDING OF REPORTS AND PROJECTS,
MIMEOGRAPHING OR PHOTOCOPYING OF TEST QUESTIONNAIRES,
HANDOUTS, OR ANY PRINTED MATERIAL." Significantly, this
Memorandum specifically provides that "Faculty members who intend to use
mimeographed or photocopied test questionnaires should first refer these to
their respective department officers. If approved, they should not sell these
more than the cost of the prevailing price of photocopies which are between
₱0.25 to ₱0.35 centavos per page. x x x 2. Any faculty member found
violating the school’s policies shall be subject to disciplinary action, either
suspension or dismissal, depending on the gravity of the offense."
Under these regulatory measures, it appears clearly that Memorandum No.
P-22, while specifically on the subject of Mimeographed Examinations, is not
the current TIP issuance on the matter. Memorandum No. P-66 is the latest
issuance and the one that specifies the requirements and penalizes
violations. On the other hand, Memorandum No. P-25 appears to be an
issuance with little relevance on the present dispute because it deals with
instructional materials and by its own terms does not cover "other photocopy
needs of the students." An additional reason for its irrelevance, of course, is
the existence of at least two issuances that deal specifically with
examination papers.
Salon never denied that she had charged her students the cost of their
examination papers without the approval of the proper school authorities
pursuant to Memorandums Nos. P-22 and P-66. The rationale behind the
school policy of closely regulating the cost and sale of examination papers is
to free the students from avoidable financial burdens, and to prevent the
abuse of the use of printed examination papers by the teachers, as
expressly stated in Memorandum No. P-22. It is of no moment that Salon
kept within the price range set by the school for the cost per page of the
examination paper. Her transgressions spring from her failure to secure prior
approval of her use of photocopied exam papers, and of the attendant cost.
These transgressions link up directly with the students’ allegations that they
had to return and could not write on the exam papers they paid for – a
possible indicator of the intent to abuse.41
Salon's guilt is not erased or mitigated by her excuse that she had no choice
but to secure reimbursement from the students for the cost of the
examination papers that the school should provide but does not. The school
does not deny that the teachers have to be reimbursed, but at the same time
it imposes measures to avoid abuses. Unless there is a showing of patent
unreasonableness (and we find none in this case), these measures have to
be complied with. In saying this, we do not thereby indicate our approval of
the school practice of not providing test papers as part of services to
students covered by their matriculation fees. Tests are the traditional and the
accepted mode of measuring students’ performance and should be part and
parcel of the basic services that a school should offer. Charging their costs
to students at the time of the examination renders the students’ capacity to
take the examinations dependent on their finances at examination time.
However, these are policy questions outside the scope of our present
inquiry, as the substantive reasonableness of the school’s policies and
issuances is not a question directly before us, nor are these issuances
patently unreasonable. Thus, they do not enter the picture at all in the
determination of Salon’s guilt and penalty.

Therefore, pursuant to the memorandums issued by the school for the

purpose of regulatory measures, Salon’s failure to comply with such justifies
her dismissal.