When a Teacher’s Grade Changes Become Illegal Dismissal: Academic Integrity vs. Discretion

The Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in NLRC v. Salgarino (G.R. No. 164376) clarifies a crucial boundary in Philippine labor law: not every violation of school policy by a teacher justifies dismissal. While academic integrity is paramount, the Court held that a teacher’s act of changing failing grades—done without malice and out of humanitarian concern—constitutes only simple misconduct, not the serious misconduct required for termination under the Labor Code.

The Facts: A Teacher’s Maternity Leave and Altered Grades

Maria Bernadette Salgarino, a Mathematics teacher at St. Jude Catholic School since 1988, went on maternity leave in February 1999, two weeks before the fourth periodical test. Substitute teachers administered the exams and computed grades, finding that some students had failing marks in Math.

While still on leave, Salgarino asked a substitute teacher to deliver the grading sheets to her home. She then encircled the failing grades under the "Daily Work" column and wrote passing grades beside them. She explained that she had required students to complete extra projects and conducted make-up tests before her leave, believing the students deserved passing marks. She also cited humanitarian reasons—failing them would have forced some to enroll in more than two summer subjects, which the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools prohibits.

The school investigated, found her guilty of tampering with records under the Manual, and dismissed her. Salgarino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The Issue: Simple Misconduct or Serious Misconduct?

The central question was whether Salgarino’s act of changing grades constituted "serious misconduct" under the Labor Code, which would justify dismissal, or merely simple misconduct, which would not.

The Labor Arbiter and Court of Appeals ruled in Salgarino’s favor. The NLRC reversed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of illegal dismissal.

The Ruling: No Wrongful Intent, No Serious Misconduct

The Supreme Court defined serious misconduct as improper or wrong conduct that is of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Crucially, the act must be performed with wrongful intent.

The Court found no evidence of ulterior motive or immoral consideration on Salgarino’s part. She acted out of pity for students who would not graduate on time, believing they were unprepared for exams due to the substitute teacher arrangement. While she committed an error of judgment, the Court held this was not grave misconduct warranting dismissal.

The Court also rejected the school’s argument that Salgarino breached trust and confidence. That ground applies only to employees occupying positions of trust—such as managerial staff or those handling money or property—not to a classroom teacher.

Finally, the Court noted that the relevant provision of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools on terminating employment for tampering with records uses permissive language, not mandatory language. This means termination is discretionary, not automatic. Given Salgarino’s 10 years of service, clean record, and academic excellence awards, dismissal was unduly harsh and disproportionate.

Academic Freedom Does Not Cover Grade Tampering

The Court clarified an important point: a teacher’s "academic freedom" does not include the discretion to pass or fail students arbitrarily. Academic freedom concerns freedom of thought and research, not grading discretion. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that this issue was "misplaced" in the labor case.

Practical Takeaways

• Serious misconduct requires wrongful intent. An employee’s violation of rules, without malice or bad faith, may be simple misconduct—not a valid ground for dismissal.
• Dismissal must be proportionate. Courts consider length of service, prior record, and the gravity of the offense. A first offense with mitigating circumstances rarely justifies termination.
• Permissive language matters. When a rule or regulation uses permissive rather than mandatory language, termination is discretionary, not automatic. Employers must exercise that discretion fairly.
• Loss of confidence has limits. This ground applies mainly to managerial employees or those handling the employer’s money or property—not to rank-and-file teachers.
• Procedural due process is not enough. Even if the employer follows proper notice and hearing requirements, the dismissal is still illegal if there is no valid substantive cause.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.