# Can a Private School Remove Its Principal?

From the principalship, often yes: the post carries no second tenure. From the school, only for a just or authorized cause, with due process. The cases.

This is the Markdown copy of [Can a Private School Remove Its Principal?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/private-school-principal-dismissal-cases), an article on the NASH Reviewer Blog by Mark Anthony Llego, published Oct 31, 2026, updated Nov 4, 2026. Topics: School leadership, Aspiring school heads. NASH Reviewer is an independent practice platform not affiliated with DepEd, BHROD, or NEAP.

Usually, yes, from the principalship; from the school, only for a just or authorized cause and with due process. In [*La Salette of Santiago, Inc. v. NLRC*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/mar1991/gr_82918_1991.html), G.R. No. 82918, March 11, 1991 (First Division), the leading case, the Supreme Court held that a teacher appointed principal for a fixed term had no "second or additional tenure" in the post. When her term ended, the school could name another principal, but she kept her tenure as a teacher. Dismissing a principal for misconduct needs a just cause, such as a willful breach of trust "founded on clearly established facts", plus written notice of the charge and a real opportunity to be heard ([*AMA Computer College, Inc. v. Garay*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=50927&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 162468, January 23, 2007 (Second Division); [*Balayan Colleges v. NLRC*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/mar1996/gr_101070_1996.html), G.R. Nos. 101070 and 101289, March 14, 1996 (First Division)).

Two other lines matter. A head whose office is in the corporation's by-laws and who is chosen by the board is a corporate officer whose removal goes to the regular courts, not the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ([*Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Maglaya*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=62398&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 212774, January 23, 2017 (Second Division)). And a head who lacks the qualifications in DepEd's Manual of Regulations for Private Schools need not be put back in the post ([*Geslani v. NLRC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=37602&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 113597, February 13, 1996 (First Division)), however long the acting service ([*Aklan College, Inc. v. Guarino*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_152949_2007.html), G.R. No. 152949, August 14, 2007 (Third Division)).

The rules in force on October 31, 2026 are the 2010 Revised Manual ([DepEd Order No. 88, s. 2010](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2010/06/24/do-88-s-2010-2010-revised-manual-of-regulations-for-private-schools-in-basic-education/)), as amended, the Labor Code and the Revised Corporation Code. Public school heads fall under civil service rules; see [Can a Principal Be Reassigned to Another School?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-reassignment-transfer-oic-tenure).

## Key findings

- **No second tenure in the post (*La Salette*, 1991).** A teacher made principal for a term or at pleasure gains no tenure in the post unless law or contract clearly says so, and keeps "the undoubted right to resume" teaching.
- **Qualifications decide who may hold the post (*Geslani*, 1996; *Aklan College v. Guarino*, 2007).** An unqualified head need not be reinstated, and 17 years as acting dean gave no right to the post. The 2010 Manual sets master's-level standards (Secs. 56 and 59).
- **An acting principalship can be ended at will, but the teaching job cannot (*Magis*, 2009).** The acting post was "merely temporary", but the school had to prove the probationary teacher failed its standards.
- **Dismissal needs proof and due process (*Balayan*, 1996; *Garay*, 2007).** A pay protest was not abandonment, and suspicion with a shifted charge did not support dismissal for loss of trust. Since *Perez v. PT&T* (2009), a formal hearing is required only in defined cases, but a real chance to be heard always is.
- **A board-chosen head in a by-law office is a corporate officer (*Wesleyan*, 2017).** The NLRC had no jurisdiction over a university president's removal; a dean appointed by the president is an employee (*Barba*, 2012).
- **A benefit given consistently becomes a right (*Beltran*, 2019).** A school administrator who proved a practice of early retirement won ₱450,000.
- **When the principal disciplines, the penalty must fit (*St. Michael's Institute v. Santos*, 2001).** Dismissing teachers for a first, one-day absence to join a rally was disproportionate, and they were reinstated or paid.

## Can a private school remove its principal? The short answer

It depends on what the school is ending: the administrative post, usually held for a term or at pleasure, or the teaching position, in which the principal may have tenure.

| Situation | Rule | Leading case |
|---|---|---|
| A teacher's term as principal ends | The school may appoint another principal; the teacher returns to teaching, unless law or contract clearly gave tenure in the post | *La Salette* (1991); *Brent School v. Zamora* (1990) |
| The principal is "acting" | A bona fide acting appointment is temporary and may be ended at the appointing power's pleasure, without cause, notice or hearing | *Magis* (2009); *Aklan College* (2007) |
| The principal lacks the Manual's qualifications | Reinstatement as head may be refused (*Geslani*); long acting service does not make the post permanent (*Aklan College*) | *Geslani* (1996); *Aklan College* (2007) |
| A fixed-term head is suspended and dismissed on unproven charges | Relief runs only to the end of the term | *AMA Computer College v. Austria* (2007) |
| The school dismisses the principal from employment | A just or authorized cause; for misconduct, proof, written notice of the charge, a real opportunity to be heard and a written decision | *Balayan* (1996); *Garay* (2007); *Perez v. PT&T* (2009) |
| A probationary teacher-principal is let go | The school must prove she failed the standards it set | *Magis* (2009) |
| The head's office is in the by-laws and the board chose the head | Corporate officer: the regular courts, not the NLRC | *Wesleyan* (2017); contrast *Barba* (2012) |
| The head claims a benefit the school gave others for years | A consistent, deliberate practice cannot be withdrawn | *Beltran* (2019) |

![Timeline of seven decisions, 1991 to 2019, colored by outcome for the head. Head lost: La Salette 1991, Geslani 1996, Wesleyan 2017. Head prevailed: Balayan 1996, Garay 2007, Beltran 2019. Mixed: Magis 2009. Wesleyan and Beltran are college cases.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/private-head-cases-timeline.Ccvlce7E_OEqQM.webp)

*Figure 1. Supreme Court decisions in which a private-school head contested the end of the post or claimed benefits, by date and outcome for the head. Data: seven decisions; the head prevailed in three, lost in three and had a mixed result in one (in *Magis* the Court denied the school's petition). *Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena* (2007), decided on execution only, is not counted. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/sc-cases/private-head-cases-timeline.png) or [its data (CSV)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/sc-cases/private-head-cases-timeline.csv).*


## Fixed-term and at-pleasure principalships

### *La Salette of Santiago, Inc. v. NLRC* (1991)

[*La Salette of Santiago, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/mar1991/gr_82918_1991.html), G.R. No. 82918, March 11, 1991 (First Division), Narvasa, J.

**Facts.** Clarita Javier spent about 20 years in the La Salette School System as a teacher and, at times, an administrator. She was high school principal of La Salette of Santiago for 1984–1986; under the system's rules a principal served two years, and her written appointment for the second year ran "from June 1, 1985 to May 31, 1986". In June 1986 the board named another principal and assigned her to teach at La Salette College. She sued for illegal dismissal on June 18; two days later the college president assured her there would be no loss of pay or seniority, but she refused the assignment. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC ordered her reinstated as principal.

**Issue.** Did she acquire security of tenure as principal?

**Ruling.** No; the NLRC's resolution was annulled. Teachers appointed as principals, deans or directors "do not normally, and should not expect to, acquire a second or additional tenure", which "may take place only where categorically and explicitly provided by law or agreement of the parties." She had tenure as a teacher, and "After the teacher's stint as department head or administrative officer of the school, he has the undoubted right to resume his original, primary position as school teacher." The Court reserved to her the option to keep her faculty position, to be exercised by the opening of school year 1991–1992.

**Why it matters.** A term that ends is not a dismissal, but the school's power reaches only the post: it must keep the teacher teaching.

**Later history.** *Geslani* (1996) quoted it; *Aklan College* (2007) and *Magis* (2009) applied it. The Manual it applied has been replaced (below).

### *Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora* (1990): fixed terms are valid

In [*Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=32263&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. L-48494, February 5, 1990 (En Banc), Narvasa, J., the Court upheld an athletic director's five-year term, holding that Art. 280 of the Labor Code does not reach a fixed period "agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee", and observed that fixed terms suit "appointments to the positions of dean, assistant dean, college secretary, principal, and other administrative offices in educational institutions, which are by practice or tradition rotated among the faculty members". Justice Sarmiento, concurring in part and dissenting in part, agreed that term employment survives but would not treat labor contracts as ordinary civil contracts; he warned that courts and labor officials "should nevertheless be vigilant as to whether or not the termination of the employment contract is done by reason of expiration of the period or to cheat the employee out of office."

### When the term ends during a dispute

A term also limits the remedy. In [*AMA Computer College, Parañaque v. Austria*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=50882&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 164078, November 23, 2007 (Third Division), a dean confirmed for April 17 to September 17, 2000 was suspended from September 8 and dismissed on September 29 on charges that the tribunals below found he had refuted. The school "erred in dismissing the respondent", but he could claim nothing "after September 17, 2000, because the employment, which is the source of the benefits, had, by then, already ceased to exist." He received his pay for September 8 to 17. The Manual has a parallel rule for temporary personnel removed in breach of the rules: reinstatement or back salaries "for the rest of the period provided for in his contract, at the option of the school" (Sec. 75).

In [*Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan University*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=58094&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 193857, November 28, 2012 (First Division), a dean appointed "for a period of three years effective July 1, 2002 unless sooner revoked for valid cause or causes" lost it when her college closed; this was no constructive dismissal, as her appointment "was for a fixed term, subject to reappointment and revocation or termination for a valid cause." Both are college cases.

## When a principal lacks the Manual's qualifications

### *Geslani v. NLRC* (1996)

[*Geslani v. National Labor Relations Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=37602&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 113597, February 13, 1996 (First Division), Padilla, J.

**Facts.** Heidi Geslani, who served Agno Valley College from 1958 to 1964 and again from June 1991, was appointed Head of the Pre-Elementary and Elementary Department from June 1, 1991 by her husband, then the college's president, "without prior consultation with and approval of the school’s Board of Directors." In August 1992 the board voted to terminate her employment for lack of administrative skills and lack of qualification as department head. The Labor Arbiter ordered her reinstated. The NLRC upheld the termination because she lacked the master's degree the 1992 Manual required, but, finding no due process, awarded what became a total of ₱8,000 for separation pay, unpaid wages and indemnity.

**Ruling.** The Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the NLRC and affirmed. Her appointment "was only temporary": department heads and "other high administrative offices are held by faculty members only on a temporary or non-permanent basis either within a specified term or at the pleasure of the school head or board of regents." Nothing showed she held the bachelor's degree in elementary education that the 1970 Manual named, though the Court allowed that the Labor Arbiter "may be correct" that her training and teaching were an equivalent; the 1992 Manual required a master's degree. When she was dismissed in September 1992 that Manual was not yet in force; it took effect in the summer session of 1993. By the time of the ruling it was, so reinstatement "would not serve any useful purpose as the 1992 Manual of Regulations is already in effect", and relations had become strained. But due process was "not fully observed": "while there was notice to petitioner, no hearing was conducted." That is why the award included an indemnity.

**Why it matters.** A head who lacks DepEd's current qualifications need not be reinstated to the post, but a school that dismisses without due process still pays.

### *Aklan College, Inc. v. Guarino* (2007): acting posts and the Manual

[*Aklan College, Inc. v. Guarino*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_152949_2007.html), G.R. No. 152949, August 14, 2007 (Third Division), Austria-Martinez, J. An instructor served about 17 years as Acting Dean and, from 1990, as Acting Personnel Director "in a temporary basis and until it is revoked by the President or Rector". After a year's leave he was not allowed to resume either post. The Court reversed the NLRC's award and reinstated the dismissal of his complaint:

- An acting appointee "could not reasonably have expected that he had acquired security of tenure", and needs no "notice to the acting appointee or any form of hearing."
- The 1970 Manual required a dean to hold "an appropriate graduate degree", which he lacked; the Manuals "have the force and effect of law", and 17 years "did not give him a vested right to occupy in a permanent capacity the position to which he was appointed."
- "It is settled that questions respecting a private school teacher’s entitlement to security of tenure are governed by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and not the Labor Code." That line now needs a qualifier (Sec. 102, below).

He remained an instructor, so no separation pay was due. He was not a school head.

### What the Manual requires now

The 1970 and 1992 Manuals have been replaced by the 2010 Revised Manual, effective school year 2010–2011 (DO 88, s. 2010, paras. 3–4). On the head's post:

- **Who the school head is.** The chief executive may be titled "President, Rector, Director or Principal" (Sec. 54); where a president or director heads the school, the principal "shall assist the school head" (Sec. 56).
- **Qualifications.** The school head must be a Filipino citizen, "possess at least a master's degree or a professional license requiring at least a bachelor's degree", have management experience, and be of good moral character (Sec. 55). The principal "shall hold a master's degree and should have at least five years of relevant teaching or of administrative experience" (Sec. 56). Sec. 59, on supervisory officials, lists for principals a "master of arts in education, or equivalent, with three years of successful teaching experience", with equivalencies left to the Secretary's regulations.
- **Term by contract.** The head's term of office, pay, benefits and other conditions "shall be defined in and secured by a contract or appointment, which shall be the subject of agreement by and between the parties in consonance with law and the rules and standards of the school" (Sec. 58).

Section 58 is today's text behind *La Salette*: the appointment paper decides the term.

## Acting principals and probationary teachers

### *Magis Young Achievers' Learning Center v. Manalo* (2009)

[*Magis Young Achievers' Learning Center v. Manalo*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_178835_2009.html), G.R. No. 178835, February 13, 2009 (Third Division), Nachura, J.

**Facts.** Adelaida Manalo was hired on April 18, 2002 as "a teacher and acting principal" at ₱15,000 a month. On March 29, 2003 she signed a resignation letter. Two days later the directress wrote that, to cut costs, "the position of PRINCIPAL will be abolished next school year" and her contract would not be renewed. She sued. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint; the NLRC ordered her reinstated as a teacher with back wages; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

**Ruling.** Petition denied.

- "There should also be no doubt that respondent’s appointment as Acting Principal is merely temporary, or one that is good until another appointment is made to take its place", citing *La Salette*.
- The resignation was ineffective (never accepted, doubtfully voluntary), and doubt about the contract's term was resolved for the worker (Civil Code Art. 1702).
- She was a probationary teacher, and under the 1992 Manual probation could last up to three school years, with security of tenure during it. The school had to "show by competent evidence that she did not meet the standards set by the school." It did not: "Nowhere in that letter was respondent informed that her performance as a school teacher was less than satisfactory."
- Back wages were confined to the rest of the probation: ₱325,000, including 13th-month pay, plus ₱3,750 in pro-rated 13th-month pay.

**Why it matters.** The school could end the acting post at will, but not her teaching job without proof.

**Today.** The 2010 Manual allows probation of "not more than three years in the case of the school teaching personnel" (Sec. 63). The Labor Code allows dismissing a probationary employee for just cause or for failing "reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his engagement" (Art. 296, formerly 281).

## Dismissal for cause: loss of trust, abandonment and due process

### *Balayan Colleges v. NLRC* (1996)

[*Balayan Colleges v. National Labor Relations Commission*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/mar1996/gr_101070_1996.html), G.R. Nos. 101070 and 101289, March 14, 1996 (First Division), Kapunan, J.

**Facts.** Two deans and the high school principal, Divinagracia Chua, also taught part-time in the college at ₱14.00 an hour and asked for ₱20.06, their subordinates' rate. When the school did not act, they stopped teaching in the college on December 1, 1988. After DECS officials intervened they resumed teaching on January 3, 1989. On January 17, 1989, without a hearing, the president dismissed them as department heads "effective immediately" for "loss of confidence, insubordination, commission of acts detrimental to the school, disobedience to company rules and regulations, misconduct and breach of trust". The school posted the letters on campus and sent copies to the town mayor and the parish priest.

**Ruling.** The dismissals were illegal.

- "For abandonment to constitute a valid cause of termination, there must be a deliberate, unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment." The three kept working as heads; "the teachers never had the intention to cut their employment from the school." They "were appointed as full-time administrative heads", and stopping part-time teaching to protest pay was not insubordination.
- "The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process." None was met.
- "As for Chua, the NLRC correctly ordered her reinstatement since Balayan's High School Department is still in operation." The deans got separation pay because the college department had closed. The Court restored moral (₱50,000 each) and exemplary (₱20,000 each) damages for the "insulting and humiliating" manner of dismissal.

**Why it matters.** *Balayan* and *La Salette* do not conflict: the school in *Balayan* relied not on an expired term but on unproven misconduct, with no hearing.

**Later history.** *Perez v. PT&T* (2009, En Banc) later held that a formal hearing is mandatory only in defined cases (below).

### *AMA Computer College, Inc. v. Garay* (2007)

[*AMA Computer College, Inc. v. Garay*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=50927&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 162468, January 23, 2007 (Second Division), Quisumbing, J.

**The principal was cleared.** The Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court all found Zenaida Garay dismissed without valid cause. She "could not in any credible way be connected with the loss of an envelope with cash left in the comfort room by the cashier."

**Facts.** Garay, a college instructor since 1994, became principal of AMA's High School Department on May 13, 1996. Four days later the cashier left an envelope with ₱47,299.34 in the high school comfort room; it was gone when she returned, and she recalled Garay as the next person in. She was searched, nothing was found, and she was preventively suspended. She answered every notice; the hearings were always canceled. She was dismissed for loss of trust and confidence on June 19 and, after that notice was set aside, again on July 1, 1996. The charge then shifted to her "belligerent and hostile attitude" during the investigation.

**Ruling.** Petition denied. "To be a valid ground for dismissal, loss of trust and confidence must be based on a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts." It "must rest on substantial grounds and not on the employer’s arbitrariness, whims, caprices or suspicion; otherwise, the employee would eternally remain at the mercy of the employer." She had cooperated with the investigation, and "The sudden shift made by the petitioners on the ground for terminating Garay only reinforces the Court’s conviction that there was no basis in the first place to hold Garay suspect of any infraction." The awards below, including reinstatement, back wages and ₱150,000 in damages, stood.

**Why it matters.** Loss of trust needs proof of a willful breach, and a charge should not shift when the first fails.

### Other cases

- **Protest.** In [*Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=51991&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 173076, October 10, 2007 (Third Division), an elementary-department principal dismissed after joining a protest won under a final 2004 Court of Appeals ruling that "dismissal is definitely too harsh where a less punitive action such as reprimand or disciplinary action would have been sufficient." The Supreme Court decided only execution.
- **Managerial staff.** In [*Aurelio v. NLRC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=35388&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 99034, April 12, 1993 (Third Division), a college administrator's dismissal for loss of trust was upheld, since employers "are allowed a wider latitude of discretion in terminating the employment of managerial personnel", with a ₱1,000 indemnity for skipping notice and hearing under the *Wenphil* rule of the time, as in *Geslani*. Since [*Agabon v. NLRC*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158693_2004.html), G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004 (En Banc), such a dismissal stands, but the employer pays "indemnity in the form of nominal damages" (₱30,000 in *Agabon*).

**The rules now.** For personnel "under permanent status", the 2010 Manual requires that removal "shall be for cause and after due process" (Sec. 75), lists the causes, including "willful breach of the trust reposed in him by the school" (Sec. 76), and guarantees a written complaint, a written answer, access to the evidence, counsel and a written decision (Sec. 77). The Labor Code requires "a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination" and "ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself" (Art. 292(b), formerly 277(b)). Its just causes include willful breach of trust (Art. 297(c), formerly 282(c)), and it also allows termination for authorized causes such as closure or redundancy (Art. 298, formerly 283). In [*Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co.*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_152048_2009.html), G.R. No. 152048, April 7, 2009 (En Banc), Corona, J., the Court held that this means "any meaningful opportunity (verbal or written) given to the employee to answer the charges against him and submit evidence in support of his defense", and that "a formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory only when requested by the employee in writing or substantial evidentiary disputes exist or a company rule or practice requires it, or when similar circumstances justify it." Justice Velasco dissented on that point, and Justice Brion concurred. *Balayan* and *Geslani* applied the earlier formula of notice and hearing.

## Presidents and directors chosen by the board: a different forum

### *Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Maglaya* (2017)

[*Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Maglaya*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=62398&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 212774, January 23, 2017 (Second Division), Peralta, J.

**Facts.** Guillermo Maglaya, a corporate member and trustee, was elected President of the University on May 25, 2005 for five years. When the members' terms ended on December 31, 2008, the Bishops of the United Methodist Church appointed new members and trustees, the new board elected new officers, and on April 27, 2009 he was told his services as president had ended. In his illegal-dismissal case, the Labor Arbiter found no jurisdiction; the NLRC treated him as an employee and awarded ₱2,505,208.75; the Court of Appeals refused review because that award had become final.

**Ruling.** Petition granted.

- The university's petition was timely, so immutability of judgment did not bar it.
- He was a corporate officer. The rule is "that the creation of the position is under the corporation's charter or by-laws, and that the election of the officer is by the directors or stockholders must concur in order for an individual to be considered a corporate officer, as against an ordinary employee or officer." The by-laws provided for the President of the University, and the board, not a managing officer, chose him; calling it an appointment rather than an election changed nothing.
- "To emphasize, the determination of the rights of a corporate officer dismissed from his employment, as well as the corresponding liability of a corporation, if any, is an intra-corporate dispute subject to the jurisdiction of the regular courts." The Court applied PD 902-A, Sec. 5(c), as amended by RA 8799, which gives regional trial courts these disputes.
- "a void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all." He was ordered to reimburse the ₱2,505,208.75.

**What it did not decide:** whether his removal was justified.

**Why it matters.** It applies to basic-education schools by analogy. Sec. 57 says the head's specific powers "shall be defined in the by-laws of the school corporation", but that alone does not make the head a corporate officer: the by-laws must name the office, and the board must choose the head (*Wesleyan*; *Barba*).

### *Barba* (2012): a dean is an employee

In *Barba*, a dean appointed by the university president was an employee, not a corporate officer, because "a position must be expressly mentioned in the By-Laws in order to be considered as a corporate office" (quoting *Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros*, G.R. No. 157802, October 13, 2010 (Third Division)), and "It is worthy to note that a College Dean is not among the corporate officers mentioned in respondent’s by-laws." A principal whose office is not named in the by-laws, or who was appointed by the president or director, is in the same position, and the labor tribunals hear the case.

### The Revised Corporation Code

The Revised Corporation Code ([RA 11232](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2019/ra_11232_2019.html), approved February 20, 2019) lists the president, treasurer and secretary "and (d) such other officers as may be provided in the bylaws" (Sec. 24), and "Education corporations shall be governed by special laws and by the general provisions of this Code" (Sec. 105). *Wesleyan* placed these disputes with the regional trial courts under RA 8799; the Revised Corporation Code lets the Securities and Exchange Commission keep only pending intra-corporate cases already submitted for final resolution, and pending suspension-of-payment or rehabilitation cases filed as of June 30, 2000 (Sec. 179(b)). One change: if the articles or by-laws contain an arbitration agreement, intra-corporate disputes "shall be referred to arbitration", and a regional trial court must dismiss such a case before pretrial ends (Sec. 181). As of October 2026, no Supreme Court decision since 2019 has restated the *Wesleyan* test for a school head.

## Retirement and benefits by company practice

### *Beltran v. AMA Computer College-Biñan* (2019)

[*Beltran v. AMA Computer College-Biñan*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=64715&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 223795, April 3, 2019 (Second Division), Caguioa, J.

**Facts.** Quintin Beltran rose from instructor (1990) to registrar (1998) to School Administrator and Chief Operations Officer of AMA's Biñan campus (1999). In 2008, at 47, he applied for early retirement, was told it was approved, and left for the United States. AMA said it had disapproved the request and that he left without turnover; he proved otherwise with AMA's own clearance and exit forms. The tribunals below denied the claim for lack of proof of a policy, and because he was below retirement age.

**Ruling.** Petition granted. The Labor Code bars eliminating or reducing benefits (Art. 100), but "the basis for the grant of said benefit must be shown through an express policy, written contract, or an unwritten policy that has ripened into a company practice. To be considered a practice, it must be consistently and deliberately made by the employer over a significant period of time." Two former employees, a school director and a basic-education registrar, swore that AMA gave one month's pay per year to employees with at least 10 years' service; AMA offered nothing in reply. The Court held that AMA "had a consistent company practice of granting early retirement to its employees who have rendered at least 10 years of service" and "clearly acted in bad faith in refusing to grant petitioner's request for early retirement." It awarded ₱450,000 (₱25,000 × 18 years), last pay, ₱100,000 each in moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, against AMA only, not its officers.

**Why it matters.** A school cannot pick among employees who meet the terms of a benefit it gives consistently. Without a plan, agreement or practice, the Labor Code's default applies: retirement at 60 to 65 after at least five years, with at least half a month's salary per year (Art. 302, formerly 287, as *Beltran* notes). The 2010 Manual adds that "Every private school shall have a retirement plan for its school personnel under permanent status" (Sec. 103).

## When the principal disciplines teachers

### *St. Michael's Institute v. Santos* (2001)

[*St. Michael's Institute v. Santos*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=44022&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 145280, December 4, 2001 (Second Division), De Leon, Jr., J.

**Facts.** Three teachers of St. Michael's Institute in Bacoor, Cavite, officers of a new teachers' union, took part on a school day in a rally of faculty, parents and students over facilities and pay. Principal Eugenia Blanco required written explanations and created an investigating committee; on its recommendation the teachers were dismissed for serious disrespect to the director and serious misconduct. The Labor Arbiter upheld the dismissals; the NLRC and the Court of Appeals did not.

**Ruling.** Petition denied. Penalties must be "commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction." Dismissal "for dereliction of duty for one school day and denouncing school authority, appears to be too harsh a penalty", given a first offense and, for one teacher, "long years of unblemished service." "Where a penalty less punitive would suffice, whatever missteps may have been committed by the employee ought not to be visited with a consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment." The Court also noted that "the respondents were singled out by the petitioners apparently for being officers of the teachers' union which they formed", though other teachers joined the rally. Two teachers were reinstated with back wages; the third received separation benefits and back wages to December 11, 1998, when she turned 65.

**Why it matters.** The procedure was not in issue. The school lost because dismissal was too harsh for a first, one-day absence, and "evidence is wanting on the depravity of conduct, and willfulness of the disobedience on the part of the respondents." The Court also observed that the three appeared to have been singled out as union officers.

### *Salavarria v. Letran College* (1998): the school head decides the penalty

In [*Salavarria v. Letran College*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=39735&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 110396, September 25, 1998 (Third Division), Romero, J., the Court upheld a teacher's dismissal for approving an unauthorized student collection after a final warning, though it noted she "never took physical custody of the funds, nor was she charged with misappropriating the same for personal gain" and upheld ₱45,000 in separation pay on equity. On the High School Council's recommendation of a one-month suspension, it adopted the Solicitor General's view on the rector-president's power: "It is not in the council’s province to finally decide what penalty is to be imposed upon those found guilty since this discretion is vested in the school head, private respondent Alarcon."

**Read the two together.** A committee recommends; the school head decides (*Salavarria*). The decision must still be proportionate (*St. Michael's*), and the 2010 Manual provides that "penalties shall be imposed for like offenses, and no private school personnel shall be penalized more than once for the same offense" (Sec. 79).

## Criminal exposure over tuition

In [*Reside v. People*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jul2020/gr_210318_2020.html), G.R. No. 210318, July 28, 2020 (First Division), a principal who failed to remit tuition she collected was convicted of qualified theft, not estafa: as "principal and temporary cash custodian" she had only material possession. See [Can a Principal Be Jailed Over School Funds?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-malversation-graft-school-funds).

## The rules in force in 2026: the Manual, the Labor Code and the Revised Corporation Code

| Instrument | Status on October 31, 2026 | What it means for a private-school head |
|---|---|---|
| [DO 88, s. 2010](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2010/06/24/do-88-s-2010-2010-revised-manual-of-regulations-for-private-schools-in-basic-education/), 2010 Revised Manual (June 24, 2010) | In force from SY 2010–2011, as amended; replaced the 1992 Manual where inconsistent (para. 3); still cited in DO 017, s. 2026 and DM 023, s. 2026 | Secs. 54–59 (head, qualifications, powers, term by contract); 63 (probation); 72 (written contract or appointment); 74 (grievance machinery); 75–81 (removal for cause, safeguards, appeal, preventive suspension without pay of up to 60 days; Labor Code rules: 30); 102 (Labor Code and CBA); 103 (retirement plan) |
| Amendments: [DO 11, s. 2011](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2011/02/04/do-11-s-2011-amendments-to-the-2010-revised-manual-of-regulations-for-private-schools-in-basic-education/) (February 4, 2011), [DO 041, s. 2022](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2022/09/19/september-19-2022-do-041-s-2022-amendment-to-deped-order-no-88-s-2010-2010-revised-manual-of-regulations-for-private-schools/) and [DO 026, s. 2023](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2023/10/11/october-10-2023-do-026-s-2023-amendment-to-deped-order-no-88-s-2010-as-amended-by-deped-order-no-11-s-2011-and-deped-order-no-041-s-2022-2010-revised-manual-of-regulations-for/) | In force | Permits, recognition, branches, Sec. 70's title (text unchanged), pupil absences, campus security, fees, sites and sanctions; DO 11 retitles it the "2011 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools in Basic Education" (para. 5). None changes Secs. 54–60 or the personnel rules used here (63, 72, 74–81, 102–103) |
| [Labor Code](https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1974/pd_442_1974.html) (PD 442, as amended) | In force; renumbered by DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, s. 2015 | Arts. 292(b), 294, 296, 297–298 and 302 (formerly 277(b), 279, 281, 282–283 and 287); Art. 100. Implementing rules, Book V, Rule XXIII, Secs. 8–9: preventive suspension only on a serious and imminent threat, 30 days unpaid at most |
| [Revised Corporation Code](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2019/ra_11232_2019.html) (RA 11232, February 20, 2019) | In force; replaced the code *Wesleyan* applied | Corporate officers (Sec. 24); education corporations (Secs. 105–106); arbitration of intra-corporate disputes (Sec. 181) |

As of October 2026, DepEd has issued no replacement Manual; pandemic-era orders (DO 039, s. 2020; DO 002, s. 2022; DO 012, s. 2023) covered those school years only and did not touch personnel.

**Manual or Labor Code?** *Aklan College* (2007) said "not the Labor Code", but the current Manual makes its provisions on probation, security of employment, removal, termination, pay, hours, benefits and other conditions "subject to collective bargaining agreement and pertinent provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines and its Implementing Rules and Regulations" (Sec. 102). It follows that the Manual's own causes and procedure apply, but where the Labor Code or its rules differ, they prevail (Sec. 102).

## What this means for school heads

**For your own post:**

1. **Read your appointment before you sign it.** Section 58 makes the head's term a matter of contract: note whether the post is fixed-term, at pleasure or acting, and whether you keep your teaching position. If you were promised tenure as principal, get it in writing: *La Salette* allows it only where "categorically and explicitly provided by law or agreement of the parties." If you were hired directly as head on a fixed term, with no teaching appointment, the end of the term can end the employment itself, since "a tenured status of employment co-exists and is co-terminous only with the definite term fixed in the contract of employment" (*Austria*); a teaching post survives only if you hold one (*La Salette*).
2. **Protect your teaching status and qualifications.** Your tenure is usually in your teaching position. Meet the Manual's qualifications (Secs. 55, 56 and 59); an acting appointment while you complete them is temporary (*Aklan College*; *Magis*).
3. **Know who appointed you.** A board-chosen head in a by-law office goes to court or, if the by-laws provide, arbitration (*Wesleyan*; RA 11232, Sec. 181); a head appointed by the president or director is an employee (*Barba*).
4. **Keep proof of your own conduct and keep working.** *Beltran* won on AMA's own clearance and exit forms; *Garay* on the school's lack of evidence and her record of answering every notice; the *Balayan* heads kept working while they protested.

**When you discipline teachers or staff:**

1. **Give written notice of the specific charge and a real chance to answer**, with access to the evidence (Manual, Sec. 77; Labor Code, Art. 292(b), formerly 277(b)). Hold a formal hearing if the employee asks for one in writing, the facts are seriously disputed or school rules require one (*Perez*), and hold the hearings you schedule.
2. **Decide on evidence and keep the charge fixed** (*Garay*).
3. **Fit the penalty to the offense**, weighing a first offense and years of service (*St. Michael's*); the Manual calls for consistent penalties for like offenses and bars penalizing anyone twice for the same offense (Sec. 79). A committee recommends; you decide and answer for it (*Salavarria*).
4. **Do not single out union officers or shame anyone** (*St. Michael's*; *Balayan*).
5. **Keep any unpaid preventive suspension short and justified.** The Manual allows it, when the charge involves dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct or neglect of duty, for up to 60 days without pay, after which the employee returns or the suspension continues with provisional pay (Sec. 80). The Labor Code's implementing rules allow it "only if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers", and provide that "No preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days" (Omnibus Rules, Book V, Rule XXIII, Secs. 8–9, as amended by DO 9, s. 1997, as quoted in [*Mandapat v. Add Force Personnel Services, Inc.*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180285_2010.html), G.R. No. 180285, July 6, 2010 (First Division)). After that the employer must reinstate the employee or pay wages for the extension (*Perez*). In [*Gatbonton v. NLRC*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_146779_2006.html), G.R. No. 146779, January 23, 2006 (First Division), a Mapua associate professor's 30-day suspension was held illegal because nothing showed such a threat. Since Sec. 102 makes the Manual subject to those rules, the safer course is to meet both: suspend only on a listed charge that also poses such a threat, and pay after 30 days.
6. **Document everything:** notices, answers, hearing minutes, the committee's report and your written decision.

See also [Human Resource Management for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-human-resource-management), [PPSSH Domain 2](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-2-managing-school-operations) and [PPSSH Domain 4](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-4-developing-self-and-others).

## How the NASH may test this

The two items below are original practice items, scored 3 (Relational), 2 (Multistructural), 1 (Unistructural) or 0 (Prestructural). An option that breaks a rule scores 0.

### Question 1

*Indicator 4.7.1, General welfare of human resources. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.*

Ms. Cruz, a permanent full-time teacher at a private high school for nine years, was appointed principal two years ago under a written two-year appointment. The term has ended, the board has appointed another principal, and the school offers her a full teaching load at her teacher's salary and rank. She says she was illegally dismissed and must be reinstated as principal. Which statement best describes her rights?

- **A.** She cannot claim the principalship back, because her two-year term has ended and the board has already appointed her successor as principal.
- **B.** She may return to teaching only if the board consents, since accepting the principalship replaced her teaching position for as long as the appointment lasted.
- **C.** The principalship ended with its term, so she cannot claim it back, and the school's offer of a teaching load settles the matter.
- **D.** The post carried no tenure because her appointment granted none explicitly, but her tenure as a permanent teacher survives, so she must be restored to teaching without loss of rank or pay.

**Answer and explanation**

**Best answer: D.** Points: A = 1, B = 0, C = 2, D = 3.

- **A (1 point, Unistructural).** It sees that the post has ended but says nothing about her right to teach.
- **B (0 points, Prestructural).** It contradicts *La Salette*: accepting the post "does not operate as a relinquishment or loss by him of his security of tenure as a faculty member", so her return to teaching is her right, not the board's choice.
- **C (2 points, Multistructural).** The outcome is right, but it treats the teaching load as the school's offer rather than her right, and does not say why the post carried no tenure.
- **D (3 points, Relational).** It connects the term, the missing grant of tenure in the post and her surviving tenure as a teacher.

**Why.** In *La Salette of Santiago, Inc. v. NLRC* (G.R. No. 82918, March 11, 1991), administrators gain no "second or additional tenure", and the teacher "has the undoubted right to resume his original, primary position as school teacher." The 2010 Manual makes the head's term a matter of "contract or appointment" (DO 88, s. 2010, Sec. 58).

*Indicator 4.7.1: Display knowledge of laws, policies, guidelines and issuances on the rights, privileges and benefits of school personnel to promote their general welfare.*

*Sources: La Salette of Santiago, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82918, March 11, 1991; DepEd Order No. 88, s. 2010, Sec. 58.*

### Question 2

*Indicator 2.4.1, Management of staff. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.*

You are the principal and school head of a private high school. On a school day, three permanent teachers who are officers of the new union join a public rally about the school's facilities, with several other teachers, and their classes go untaught. It is a first offense for each, and one has 14 years of unblemished service. The board chair wants the three dismissed. Which course of action is most consistent with the law?

- **A.** Give each teacher who joined written notice of the charge and a chance to answer, then impose a penalty short of dismissal that weighs the first offense and service, applied alike to all.
- **B.** Dismiss the three union officers at once, since leading a rally against the administration is serious disrespect, and an example will keep other teachers from joining such rallies.
- **C.** Give each teacher who joined written notice and a chance to answer before a committee, then adopt the committee's recommended penalty without review, since it heard the evidence.
- **D.** Talk to the three teachers informally and warn them orally, keeping no written record, so that relations with the new union are not strained by formal charges.

**Answer and explanation**

**Best answer: A.** Points: A = 3, B = 0, C = 2, D = 1.

- **A (3 points, Relational).** It joins notice, a chance to answer, a proportionate penalty and equal treatment into one lawful process.
- **B (0 points, Prestructural).** It skips the written charge and answer the Manual requires (Sec. 77), and *St. Michael's* held dismissal for a first, one-day absence too harsh.
- **C (2 points, Multistructural).** The procedure is right, but it hands the decision to the committee; the penalty is the school head's to decide and must be proportionate.
- **D (1 point, Unistructural).** It avoids a harsh penalty but leaves no charge, answer or record.

**Why.** In *St. Michael's Institute v. Santos* (G.R. No. 145280, December 4, 2001), dismissal "for dereliction of duty for one school day and denouncing school authority" appeared to the Court "too harsh a penalty" for a first offense, and the teachers seemed "singled out" as union officers. A council only recommends; the penalty is "vested in the school head" (*Salavarria v. Letran College*, G.R. No. 110396, September 25, 1998). The 2010 Manual guarantees permanent personnel a written complaint and a written answer (Sec. 77) and provides that "penalties shall be imposed for like offenses" (Sec. 79).

*Indicator 2.4.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of laws, policies, guidelines and issuances on managing school staff.*

*Sources: St. Michael's Institute v. Santos, G.R. No. 145280, December 4, 2001; Salavarria v. Letran College, G.R. No. 110396, September 25, 1998; DepEd Order No. 88, s. 2010, Secs. 77 and 79.*

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can a private school replace its principal without a reason?

Yes, if the principalship was held for a term that has ended, at the school's pleasure, or in an acting capacity. *La Salette* (1991) held that a teacher made principal gains no "second or additional tenure" in the post, and *Magis* (2009) called an acting principalship "merely temporary". Ending the person's teaching employment needs a just or authorized cause and due process (*Magis*; Labor Code Art. 294, formerly 279).

### Where does a private-school principal file an illegal-dismissal case?

Usually with the NLRC's Labor Arbiter, if the principal, like the dean in *Barba* (2012), is an employee appointed by the president or director. If the by-laws create the office and the board chose the head, the head is a corporate officer and the case goes to the regular courts (*Wesleyan*, 2017), or to arbitration if the articles or by-laws so provide (RA 11232, Sec. 181). Within the school, the Manual requires grievance machinery "including provisions for voluntary arbitration" (Sec. 74), and permanent personnel may appeal a disciplinary removal to the Secretary within fifteen days (Sec. 78).

### Can a private school dismiss its principal for loss of trust and confidence?

Yes, but only on proof. In *Garay* (2007), loss of trust had to rest on "a willful breach of trust and founded on clearly established facts", and the Court found the principal could not be connected with the missing cash. The school must also give written notice and a real opportunity to be heard (*Balayan*, 1996); a formal hearing is required only in the cases *Perez v. PT&T* (2009) lists.

## Download the data

- [private-head-cases-timeline.csv](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/sc-cases/private-head-cases-timeline.csv): the seven decisions in Figure 1 in which a private-school head contested the end of the post or claimed benefits (*Mt. Carmel* is not counted), with title, G.R. number, date, division, the head's post, level (basic education or college), outcome for the head and a one-line summary of what the Court decided.

The CSVs and charts may be reused only with written permission: email [support@nash.com.ph](mailto:support@nash.com.ph). The decisions themselves are public records of the Supreme Court, which you can cite directly.

## Sources

**Supreme Court decisions:**

- [*Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=32263&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. L-48494, February 5, 1990 (En Banc).
- [*La Salette of Santiago, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/mar1991/gr_82918_1991.html), G.R. No. 82918, March 11, 1991 (First Division).
- [*Aurelio v. National Labor Relations Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=35388&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 99034, April 12, 1993 (Third Division).
- [*Geslani v. National Labor Relations Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=37602&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 113597, February 13, 1996 (First Division).
- [*Balayan Colleges v. National Labor Relations Commission*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/mar1996/gr_101070_1996.html), G.R. Nos. 101070 and 101289, March 14, 1996 (First Division).
- [*Salavarria v. Letran College*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=39735&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 110396, September 25, 1998 (Third Division).
- [*St. Michael's Institute v. Santos*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=44022&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 145280, December 4, 2001 (Second Division).
- [*AMA Computer College, Inc. v. Garay*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=50927&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 162468, January 23, 2007 (Second Division).
- [*Aklan College, Inc. v. Guarino*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/aug2007/gr_152949_2007.html), G.R. No. 152949, August 14, 2007 (Third Division).
- [*Mt. Carmel College v. Resuena*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=51991&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 173076, October 10, 2007 (Third Division).
- [*AMA Computer College, Parañaque v. Austria*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=50882&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 164078, November 23, 2007 (Third Division).
- [*Magis Young Achievers' Learning Center v. Manalo*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/feb2009/gr_178835_2009.html), G.R. No. 178835, February 13, 2009 (Third Division).
- [*Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan University*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=58094&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 193857, November 28, 2012 (First Division), quoting *Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros*, G.R. No. 157802, October 13, 2010 (Third Division).
- [*Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Maglaya*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=62398&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 212774, January 23, 2017 (Second Division).
- [*Beltran v. AMA Computer College-Biñan*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=64715&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0&HitCount=0&hits=&SearchForm=), G.R. No. 223795, April 3, 2019 (Second Division).
- [*Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158693_2004.html), G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004 (En Banc).
- [*Gatbonton v. National Labor Relations Commission*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jan2006/gr_146779_2006.html), G.R. No. 146779, January 23, 2006 (First Division).
- [*Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co.*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/apr2009/gr_152048_2009.html), G.R. No. 152048, April 7, 2009 (En Banc).
- [*Mandapat v. Add Force Personnel Services, Inc.*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/jul2010/gr_180285_2010.html), G.R. No. 180285, July 6, 2010 (First Division).
- [*Reside v. People*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jul2020/gr_210318_2020.html), G.R. No. 210318, July 28, 2020 (First Division), cited only; digested elsewhere in this series.

**Laws and rules:**

- [DepEd Order No. 88, s. 2010](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2010/06/24/do-88-s-2010-2010-revised-manual-of-regulations-for-private-schools-in-basic-education/), 2010 Revised Manual of Regulations for Private Schools in Basic Education, June 24, 2010, paras. 3–4 and Secs. 54–59, 63, 72, 74–81, 102 and 103.
- [DepEd Order No. 11, s. 2011](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2011/02/04/do-11-s-2011-amendments-to-the-2010-revised-manual-of-regulations-for-private-schools-in-basic-education/), Amendments to the 2010 Revised Manual, February 4, 2011.
- [DepEd Order No. 041, s. 2022](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2022/09/19/september-19-2022-do-041-s-2022-amendment-to-deped-order-no-88-s-2010-2010-revised-manual-of-regulations-for-private-schools/), September 19, 2022, and [DepEd Order No. 026, s. 2023](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2023/10/11/october-10-2023-do-026-s-2023-amendment-to-deped-order-no-88-s-2010-as-amended-by-deped-order-no-11-s-2011-and-deped-order-no-041-s-2022-2010-revised-manual-of-regulations-for/), October 10, 2023, amendments to DO 88, s. 2010.
- DepEd Order No. 039, s. 2020, DepEd Order No. 002, s. 2022 and DepEd Order No. 012, s. 2023 (pandemic-era special provisions); DepEd Order No. 017, s. 2026 (June 4, 2026) and DepEd Memorandum No. 023, s. 2026, which cite DO 88, s. 2010 as the current Manual.
- [Labor Code of the Philippines](https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1974/pd_442_1974.html), Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, Arts. 100, 292(b), 294, 296, 297, 298 and 302 (formerly Arts. 277(b), 279, 281, 282, 283 and 287).
- DOLE Department Advisory No. 01, s. 2015, Renumbering of the Labor Code of the Philippines, as Amended, July 21, 2015.
- Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book V, Rule XXIII, Secs. 8–9, as amended by DOLE Department Order No. 9 (1997), as quoted in *Mandapat* (2010); *Perez* cites Sec. 9 and *Gatbonton* Sec. 8.
- [Revised Corporation Code](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2019/ra_11232_2019.html), Republic Act No. 11232, approved February 20, 2019, Secs. 24, 105, 106, 179 and 181.

*This guide explains Supreme Court decisions for study and professional awareness. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult a lawyer or your Schools Division Office's legal unit.*

## The Supreme Court cases series

- [Supreme Court Cases on School Heads: A Guide for Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/supreme-court-cases-school-heads)
- [Can the Ombudsman Discipline a Principal? RA 4670 Cases](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ombudsman-deped-jurisdiction-principals)
- [Can a Principal Be Reassigned to Another School?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-reassignment-transfer-oic-tenure)
- [Promotion Protests and Nepotism: Cases on Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-promotion-protest-nepotism-cases)
- [Unauthorized School Fees: What Happens to the Principal?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/unauthorized-school-fees-principal-cases)
- [Can a Principal Be Jailed Over School Funds?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-malversation-graft-school-funds)
- [Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct: Cases on Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-dishonesty-grave-misconduct-cases)
- [Oppression Cases: How Principals Must Treat Teachers](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-oppression-teachers-cases)
- [Harassment, Child Abuse and Hazing: Cases on School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-harassment-child-abuse-hazing-cases)
- [Is a Principal Liable When a Pupil Is Injured?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-liability-pupil-injury)
- Can a Private School Remove Its Principal? (this post)
- [Preventive Suspension, Appeals and Back Pay for Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-preventive-suspension-appeal-back-pay)

*Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: Supreme Court decisions in La Salette, Brent, Aurelio, Geslani, Balayan, Salavarria, St. Michael's, Agabon, Gatbonton, Garay, Aklan College, Mt. Carmel, AMA v. Austria, Perez, Magis, Mandapat, Barba, Wesleyan and Beltran; DepEd Order No. 88, s. 2010, as amended; the Labor Code; RA 11232. Charts may be reused only with written permission from support@nash.com.ph.*

---

© 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. All rights reserved. You may quote up to 100 words from this article with the author's name, its title and a link. In research, cite it as: Llego, M. A. (2026, October 31). *Can a Private School Remove Its Principal?*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/private-school-principal-dismissal-cases. Any other reuse of the article, its charts or its data needs written permission: email support@nash.com.ph. Terms of Service: https://nash.com.ph/terms#website-content-and-data