Universities may remove profs without masters

In the first place, those without master’s degree should not have been allowed to teach in colleges and universities. In the name of high quality of education, they should not have been hired in the first place. But that is easier said than done.

The hard facts on the ground is that, really, there is a dearth of qualified professors and the truth is that private schools are now facing a crisis of lack of masters degree holders. Those who are totally qualified academically are being “pirated” by state universities and government institutions, which are now paying superior salaries and benefits. The private schools are torn between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdes, two difficult to make viable choices. They cannot increase tuition, which is strictly regulated both by the government and the law of supply and demand. And they cannot increase professors' salaries because they cannot afford them.

But the law is the law and the Supreme Court is firm in upholding the CHED regulations, and the Manual of Regulations of Private Schools. In the case of Luningning Brazil versus STI (GR No. 233314) decided by the highest court on November 21, 2018, it was held that it is perfectly valid for the private schools not to renew the contract of those who were given enough time to obtain their masteral but have failed to comply. This was a reiteration of the UE case decided by Justice Abad, and the UST case penned by Justice M. del Castillo.

I do not wish to cause undue anxieties to my fellow college professors, as I am a professor myself, since 1969, fresh from college, until now, in various colleges of law. But the law is very strict. In fact, UST and its union were reprimanded by the Supreme Court in Son, et al vs UST (GR No. 211273, April 18, 2018). It appears that UST and its faculty union (I used to be a member) entered into a collective bargaining whereby the administration allowed a deferment of the time within which to strictly enforce the CHED regulation. The Supreme Court succinctly held that such postponement was illegal, and that management and union were in pari delicto, or mutual guilt.

In the case of STI, like the case of UE, the teachers were given enough time but failed to comply. But the administration in STI committed an error, in conferring a permanent and regular status to the teachers despite the absence of masters degree. The High Court said that such an action of STI did not stop itself from terminating the services of said teachers. Management was not in estoppel. It could still validly terminate the services of said professors because, from the very start, they were not qualified. The school cannot waive what the law requires. The CHED regulations have the force of a law.

And so, I call upon both the administrations of all concerned institutions, as well as the professors sans masters degrees, to better comply, or else, the force of the law may be made to apply, and you will both end up losers. The law may be harsh but it is the law.