Answer the following:

1. Briefly state the facts of the case.

The petitioner Fe P. Burcio filed a petition against Saint Louis University for legal
termination. She claimed that the said university wrongfully demoting her to be a part-
time teacher and then later on terminated her from her job. The university on the other
hand maintained that Ms. Burcio was given enough notice to finish her master’s degree
on the given deadline and grace period but she failed to comply thus the demotion and
dismissal.

2. What was the academic criteria/criterion provided by the school for Ms. Burcio to attain regular
appointment?

The University required Ms. Burcio to finish her master’s degree before March 31, 2012 which
was later on given a grace period that lasted up to June 1, 2012.

2. What case did Ms Fe Burcio file against Saint Louis University before the National Labor
Relations Commission?

The petitioner filed a complaint for Illegal Termination with claims for damages and
attorney’s fees against the university.

3. What was the defense of the university?

Saint Louis University maintained that Ms. Burcio was given enough notice to finish her
master’s degree before she can be considered as a part-time-worker. In addition, the
university also hold that they did not dismiss the petitioner but rather she was the one
who refused the job offered after her dismissal from the regular teaching position.

5. What is the main issue in this case?

The main issue in whether Ms. Burcio is required to get a master’s degree in order to hold a
regular teaching position notwithstanding that she already completed the probationary period set under
the CBA.

6. How did the Supreme Court rule in the issue you stated in number 5?

The supreme court denied the petition on the based-on Article 21 of the Labor Code which
discusses probationary employment which states that a service of an employee can be terminated if she
fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the
employer to the employee at the time of his engagement. In this case, the university afforded her the
reasonable period to finish her master’s degree before she is dismissed from a regular position that was
required of her but she failed.

7. Is the requirement of master’s degree for tertiary education teachers reasonable in this case? Why or
why not? Provide a basis for your answer.

Having a master’s degree will increase the teacher’s career prospects and growth. It is a
concrete parameter of gauging teacher competence. Also, as students are getting more competitive in
tertiary education, there is a need for teachers to be equipped with the right teaching skills for them to
perform creditably. In this case, as Ms. Burcio is a candidate for a regular position, it is just rightful for
the school to require an additional credentials from her before she can move to a higher position with
much more responsibility. It is not about acquiring a master’s of education as a prerequisite for a regular
position but more of the need to acquire best teaching skills and strategies that can best yield the
maximum learning outcomes in students.

8. Is Ms. Burcio illegally dismissed based on the available evidence? Please support your answer.

Ms. Burcio was legally dismissed based on the fact that Saint Louis University has given enough notice
to Ms. Burcio to finish her master’s degree before she can be considered as a part-time-worker. This is
supported by the letter of resignation addressed to the university’s president such evidence proves that
she was not illegally dismissed but rather have voluntarily resigned from her position.

9. What is the criteria provided under 1992 manual? How about the requirements set under the CBA?

The applicable regulation on the time of the petitioner’s engagement as probationary full-time
member fall under the criteria of Sections 44 and 45 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools (19920 Manual). Section 44 states that the minimum qualifications for faculty for the different
grades and levels of instruction duly supported by appropriate credentials on file in the school include
being a holder of a master’s degree in order to teach largely in his major field. Section 45 further
supports those full-time academic personnel should possess at least the minimum academic
qualifications prescribed by the Department under this manual for all academic personnel therefore
those who do not meet such criterion are considered part time.

On the other hand, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provides that the period of
probation for full-time teaching employees shall be two (2) years. The CBA also specified that the
probationary employment of the university's employees who teach in its college department shall be for
a period of "four (4) Consecutive Semesters."
10. Between the standard for permanent employment stated in the 1992 manual and the CBA, which
should prevail? Why?

The 1992 Manual should prevail because in the petitioner’s case, the university already afforded her a
reasonable period to acquire the postgraduate degree that was required of her more than 2 years as per
the criteria under the CBA. A master' s degree can be fulfilled within a minimum period of two (2) years
but petitioner was given four years from 2008 to finish the same notwithstanding that she commenced
taking up her master's degree way back in the summer of 2002.

For further research:

11.What do you mean by academic freedom and constitutional autonomy? Who can exercise these
rights?

12. Distinguish constructive dismissal from illegal dismissal.

13. Distinguish probationary employment from regular employment.

14. What do you think about the decision of the Supreme Court in relation to Ms Burcio's complaint
regarding her employment?