Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lacuesta Vs Ateneo de Manila

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    239 views1 page
    Lolita Lacuesta worked as a part-time lecturer for Ateneo de Manila University for two semesters in 1988-1989, and was then hired as a full-time instructor on probation from 1990 to 1993. In January 1993, Ateneo notified Lacuesta that her contract would not be renewed because she did not integrate well with the English Department. Lacuesta claimed she had acquired permanent employment status. However, the court ruled that to acquire permanent status, one must serve as a full-time teacher for three consecutive years with satisfactory performance. As a part-time lecturer, Lacuesta's prior semesters did not count towards permanent status. Completing probation did not automatically qualify her for permanency. A

    Original Description:

    Labor

    Original Title

    20. Lacuesta vs Ateneo de Manila

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Lolita Lacuesta worked as a part-time lecturer for Ateneo de Manila University for two semesters in 1988-1989, and was then hired as a full-time instructor on probation from 1990 to 1993. In January 1993, Ateneo notified Lacuesta that her contract would not be renewed because she did not integrate well with the English Department. Lacuesta claimed she had acquired permanent employment status. However, the court ruled that to acquire permanent status, one must serve as a full-time teacher for three consecutive years with satisfactory performance. As a part-time lecturer, Lacuesta's prior semesters did not count towards permanent status. Completing probation did not automatically qualify her for permanency. A

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    239 views1 page

    Lacuesta Vs Ateneo de Manila

    Uploaded by

    pja_14
    Lolita Lacuesta worked as a part-time lecturer for Ateneo de Manila University for two semesters in 1988-1989, and was then hired as a full-time instructor on probation from 1990 to 1993. In January 1993, Ateneo notified Lacuesta that her contract would not be renewed because she did not integrate well with the English Department. Lacuesta claimed she had acquired permanent employment status. However, the court ruled that to acquire permanent status, one must serve as a full-time teacher for three consecutive years with satisfactory performance. As a part-time lecturer, Lacuesta's prior semesters did not count towards permanent status. Completing probation did not automatically qualify her for permanency. A

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LOLITA R. LACUESTA VS.

    ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY


    FACTS:
    Respondent Ateneo hired, on a contractual basis, petitioner Lolita R. Lacuesta as a part-time lecturer for the 2nd semester of school year
    1988-1989. She was re-hired, still on a contractual basis, for the 1st and 2nd semesters of school year 1989-1990. Petitioner was appointed as fulltime instructor on probation effective June 1, 1990 until March 31, 1991. Her contract as faculty on probation was renewed on April 1, 1991 until
    March 31, 1992 and again from April 1, 1992 until March 31, 1993. During years she was on probation status. In a letter dated January 27, 1993,
    respondent notified petitioner that her contract would no longer be renewed because she did not integrate well with the English Department and that
    she was not being terminated, but her contract would simply expire; hence, Lacuestas petition.
    ISSUE:
    Whether or not petitioner has already acquired permanent employment and was illegally dismissed.
    RULING:
    The requisites to acquire permanent employment, or security of tenure, are (1) the teacher is a full-time teacher; (2) the teacher must have
    rendered three consecutive years of service; and (3) such service must have been satisfactory. Only when one has served as a full-time teacher can
    he acquire permanent or regular status. The petitioner was a part-time lecturer before she was appointed as a full-time instructor on probation. As a
    part-time lecturer, her employment as such had ended when her contract expired. Thus, the three semesters she served as part-time lecturer could
    not be credited to her in computing the number of years she has served to qualify her for permanent status. Moreover, completing the probation
    period does not automatically qualify her to become a permanent employee of the university. Petitioner could only qualify to become a permanent
    employee upon fulfilling the reasonable standards for permanent employment as faculty member. Consistent with academic freedom and
    constitutional autonomy, an institution of higher learning has the prerogative to provide standards for its teachers and determine whether these
    standards have been met. In the instant case, petitioner, did not attain permanent status and was not illegally dismissed.

    You might also like