Rizza R. Cabrera Dr.

Maville Alastre-Dizon
CTP 7-3

CASE ANALYSIS

I. SUMMARY
COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN, Petitioner, vs ISIDRA DELA ROSA-MERIS, Respondent.
SUPREME COURT Republic of the Philippines
Manila THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 178837 September 1, 2014

The Court GRANTS the petition and REVERSES The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 92933, dated January 29, 2007 and its Resolution dated May 25, 2007, and REINSTATES the
Resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission, dated November 18, 2005 which
dismissed the appeal of respondent Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris.
FACTS.
Petitioner Colegio De San Juan de Letran is a religious educational institution operated by the
Order of Preachers. Respondent Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris was hired by petitioner in January 1971
as a probationary trial teacher until she became Master Teacher in June 1982. The rift between
petitioner, Colegio De San Juan de Letran and respondent, Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris began on
September 10, 2003, when several parents of the Preparatory (Prep) pupils who were under the
class of respondent went to the Principal’s Office to lodge a complaint against respondent,
alleging the following: (1) respondent has been too indifferent and unprofessional in addressing
their concerns; and (2) the pupil who landed in the top of the Honor Roll, Louis Ariel Arellano,
seemed not to be the best pupil in class. Relying on such theories, said parents then asked for
the formula in the computation of the general average.
Oct. 6, 2003, respondent Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris started a complaint against petitioner Letran
College–Manila for illegal dismissal and damages before the Labor Arbiter (LA). The LA rendered
a decision dated May 14, 2004 finding the dismissal of respondent valid and legal. On appeal to
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the LA decision was modified by ordering the
petitioner to pay the respondent separation pay benefits in lieu of reinstatement without
backwages at the rate of one month’s salary for every year of service. Both parties moved for
reconsideration. In its decision dated Nov. 18, 2005, the NLRC made a complete turnabout of its
previous stance, ruling that the respondent’s appeal was not perfected due to lack of certification
of non-forum shopping. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the decision of the
NLRC and granted the petition filed by the respondent.

II. LEGAL FOUNDATION APPLIED

The respondent Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris had committed a misconduct, serious enough to warrant
her dismissal from employment under paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the Labor Code, as well as
Section 94(b), Article XVII of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, which provides that
the employment of a teacher may be terminated for negligence in keeping school or student
records, or tampering with or falsification.

Also in Section 79 Basis for Grading of the Manual of Regulation for Private Schools says the
final grade or rating given to a pupil or student in a subject should be based on his scholastic
record. Any addition or diminution to the grade x x x shall not be allowed.

Under Sec. 9 of the MAGNA CARTA FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS, No private school teacher
shall be dismissed by the school except for cause and the proper observance of due process. In
the case above, the petitioner directed respondent to explain why no disciplinary action should
be taken against her for tampering her class records, through a letter but she refused to receive.
It is clear that respondent refused to present her side by choice. It can be said that ample
opportunity was afforded to respondent to defend herself from the charges levelled on her, but
she opted not to take it.

The respondent Isidra Dela Rosa-Meris violated the following in the Code of Ethics of
Professional Teacher
  Article VI: The Teacher and Higher Authorities in the Profession
Section 1. Every teacher shall make it his duty to make an honest effort to understand
and support the legitimate policies of the school and the administration regardless of
personal feeling or private opinion and shall faithfully carry them out.
The teacher disregarded the policy of the school with the offense of tampering of class
records as stated on the Elementary Faculty Manual of the Colegio.
 Article IX: The Teachers and the Parents
 Section 3. A teacher shall hear parent’s complaints with sympathy and understanding, and
shall discourage unfair criticism.
The teacher has been indifferent and unprofessional when the parents questioned the
grades of the Honor Student.

III. REFLECTION/ REACTION

As teachers, we should establish and maintain good relationship with school officials, teachers,
other personnel including learners and their parents. If conflict arise, it should be given proper
attention and exercise professionalism in addressing any concern. In the case stated above, the
parents raise their concern to higher authority because the teacher acted indifferently. As future
teacher, I shall not commit acts of dishonesty and be mindful of the policies and procedures. It is
my duty to determine academic marks fairly without bias. I will provide complete and clean
records and make sure it is readily available to persons with concern. If there will be a need to
alter the grades it should always be justified and according to existing policies to avoid
falsification.

It will be my duty to make honest effort to understand the policies of the school and
administration. I should maintain professional courtesy to school officials, teachers and other
personnel. I will refrain from serious misconduct and willful disobedience to avoid termination of
employment. But sometimes we can’t please everybody so conflicts arise. If in case it is not
settled, we should be aware of our rights to appeal to proper authorities.