Vigil v. Barela

Decision Date20 March 1962
Docket NumberNo. 6829,6829
Citation71 N.M. 213,1962 NMSC 41,377 P.2d 515
PartiesGregorio L. VIGIL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cirilo BARELA, Cornelio Tafoya, Juan Pacheco, Adelaido Lujan and Ricardo Durian, as members of the Board of Education of the Penasco Independent School District, and The Board of Education of the Penasco Independent School District, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

Chacon & Melendez, Espanola, Harold A. Roberts, Florenceruth J. Brown, Santa Fe, for appellants.

Lorenzo A. Chavez, Arturo G. Ortega and Melvin L. Robins, Albuquerque, for appellee.

CHAVEZ, Justice.

Plaintiff-appellee, Gregorio L. Vigil, filed suit for declaratory judgment to determine the validity of a contract dated October 13, 1956, with defendants-appellants, Board of Education of the Penasco Independent School District. Under the terms of the contract, appellee was employed as school superintendent for a period ending June 30, 1964. Appellants, by their amended answer, denied generally the allegations of the complaint and, among other defenses, alleged that the contract under which appellee based his cause of action is in violation of Sec. 73-12-13, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., as amended.

The trial court, after hearing the evidence, found that the contract dated October 13, 1956, was valid and concluded that the court would retain jurisdiction of the cause and make such orders as the court deemed just, should appellee petition for further affirmative relief. Judgment was entered accordingly and the Board of Education of the Penasco Independent School District appeals. Appellants will hereinafter be referred to as 'School Board.'

The facts briefly stated are as follows. On June 8, 1956, at a special meeting of the School Board, a written contract was entered into employing appellee as superintendent for a period of three years commencing July 1, 1956. On October 13, 1956, at a regular meeting of the School Board, attended by a majority of said School Board (a quorum being present), the contract in question in this case was entered into employing appellee as superintendent for a period of eight years commencing July 1, 1956, through June 30, 1964.

In February, 1957, a school board election was held at Penasco and two new members were elected. On March 4, 1957, the new school board held a meeting wherein appellee's contract of October 13, 1956, was discussed. At a meeting on August 17, 1957, the School Board informed appellee that it did not recognize the October 13, 1956 contract, and that appellee could serve the remaining year under the three-year contract entered into on June 8, 1956. Appellee advised the School Board that he was not relinquishing his rights under the eight-year contract. In June, 1958, the School Board dismissed appellee and thereafter appellee filed this suit.

Appellants-School Board raise four points upon which they seek a reversal:

I. That the contract shows on its face that it was for an unreasonable length of time, is fraudulent and collusive, and is illegal and void as a matter of law.

II. That appellee's eight-year contract as superintendent of the Penasco Independent School District is invalid because in violation of Sec. 73-12-13, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., as amended.

III. The court was without jurisdiction to entertain the action because appellee had not exhausted his administrative remedies.

IV. Appellee's eight-year contract with appellants-School Board is unlawful because the same is in violation of Sec. 11-6-6, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., commonly known as the Bateman Act.

We will consider point II as it is decisive of this case.

Section 73-12-13, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., as amended, being Sec. 1, Ch. 71, Laws of 1955, provides in part as follows:

'(a) On or before the closing day of each school year the governing board of education, hereinafter referred to as the governing board, of each school district in the State, whether rural, municipal or otherwise shall serve written notice of reemployment of or dismissal upon each teacher by it then employed, certified as qualified to teach by the State Board of Education, hereinafter referred to as the State Board. Written notice of placemet shall also be given to such qualified teachers employed by county boards of education on or before the closing day of school of each year.

'(b) The notice of dismissal required under subsection (a) of this section to a certified teacher who has taught in a particular county or other particular administrative school unit for three (3) consecutive years and holds a contract for the completion of a fourth consecutive year in a particular district shall specify a place and date for a hearing not less than five (5) days nor more than ten (10) days from the date of service of such notice at which time the teacher may appear. Notice of dismissal shall contain a statement of the cause or causes for dismissal upon which the governing board bases its decision to terminate the services of any teacher. Causes for dismissal of teachers shall be any such causes specified in the uniform contract approved by the State board for New Mexico school teachers or any other good and just cause. Personal service of such notice shall be made as provided by law for civil service of process and proof thereof shall be made by the affidavit of the person making such service. Any teacher aggrieved by the decision rendered after such hearing by the governing board may within ten days from the date of receipt thereof appeal to the State board.'

The pertinent language of the prior statutes should be noted. Section 1, Ch. 202, Laws of 1941, and Sec. 1, Ch. 60 of the Laws of 1943, provide in part as follows:

'55-1111. On or before the closing day of school in each school district in the State, whether rural, municipal or otherwise, the governing board shall serve written notice upon each teacher or other employe certified as qualified to teach * * *.'

Section 1, Ch. 125, Laws of 1945, amended the 1943 Act (Sec. 55-1111, N.M.S.A., 1941 Comp.) by inserting the word 'classroom' before the word 'teacher' and deleting the words 'or other employee.'

Section 1, Ch. 89, Laws of 1949 (Sec. 55-1111), provides in part as follows:

'On or before the closing day of each school year the governing board of each school district in the state whether rural, municipal or otherwise, shall serve written notice upon each class room teacher certified as qualified to teach in the schools in the state and by it then employed giving written notification of reemployment or dismissal. * * *'

Section 1, Ch. 71, Laws of 1955, again amended the 1945 Act (Sec. 55-1111) by providing:

'* * * shall serve written notice of reemployment of or dismissal upon each teacher by it then employed, certified as qualified to teach by the State Board of Education, * * *.'

Thus the 1955 Act omitted the word 'classroom' and used the words 'each teacher by it then employed, certified as qualified to teach.' By subsection (b), the 1955 Act uses the words 'a certified teacher who has taught.' The words 'or other employee' used in the 1943 Act were not reinstated in the 1945 Act or in the 1955 Act.

The state board of education has the power:

(1) To hold, or cause to be held, examinations for teachers for all the elementary and high schools of the state, under such regulations as it may prescribe. Sec. 73-1-7(d), N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.

(2) To determine qualifications of persons teaching or desiring to teach school in any of the public, elementary and high schools of the state and to that end promulgate a system of classification of teachers. Sec. 73-1-7(e), N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.

(3) To certificate teachers according to law and the prescribed classification of said board, and at its discretion to issue temporary teaching certificates in the interim of examinations, but in no case shall a person under the age of 18 years be certificated. Sec. 73-1-7(f), N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.

Under the provisions of Sec. 73-12-1, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., (Ch. 148, Laws 1923), every teacher shall present his certificate to the school authority employing him before assuming the duties of a school teacher.

Section 73-12-3, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., provides that any person who teaches in the public schools without the required teacher's certificate shall forfeit all claims to compensation for services rendered.

The contract in issue specifically provides that it is made subject to the rules and regulations of the state board of education, and that the contract shall be binding upon the School Board as soon as appellee furnishes a proper certificate for the position to be held. The contract further provides that appellee, as superintendent, shall perform all his duties faithfully and in a conscientious manner, and shall further watch the morals of all pupils under him.

The Rules and Regulations Governing Certification of Teachers and Administrators, Including New Regulations of March 5, 1951, made by the State Department of Education, 1955-1956, which were filed on April 13, 1956, with the Librarian, Supreme Court Library, on pages 9 and 10 thereof. provide:

'6. ADMINISTRATIVE CERTIFICATE-Five Year

'(1) Graduation from an approved four-year normal, college or university.

'(2) A minimum of three years of successful teaching experience, two years of which must have been in the public schools of New Mexico. A candidate for the Administrative Certicate who has had three years of successful teaching experience, but has had no teaching experience in the Public Schools of New Mexico, may be allowed to substitute one year of 30 semester hours or 45 term hours of graduate work earned in an accredited institution of higher learning in New Mexico in lieu of the two years teaching experience required in New Mexico schools.

'(3) Qualified for the Five-Year Master Teacher's Elementary Certificate or a Five Year High School Certificate.

'(4) Master's Degree or 30 semester hours of graduate work.

'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Atencio v. Board of Educ. of Penasco Independent School Dist. No. 4
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1982
    ...P.2d 252 (1944). Additionally, we have also had occasion to discuss the general rights of a school superintendent. Cf. Vigil v. Barela, 71 N.M. 213, 377 P.2d 515 (1962). E.g. Atencio v. Bd. of Ed. of Penasco Ind. Sch. Dist., 658 F.2d 774 (10th Since the time the above cases were decided, th......
  • Seyfang v. Board of Trustees of Washakie County School Dist. No. 1
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • May 5, 1977
    ...Court of New Mexico also held that a superintendent is a 'teacher' within its Teachers' Tenure Act's provisions. Vigil v. Barela, 71 N.M. 213, 377 P.2d 515, 519 (1962). Relying again on a statutory analysis, the court concluded that since a superintendent must be certified as qualified to t......
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • November 28, 1962
  • Gelencser v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • May 10, 1966
    ...44 N.E.2d 455. Among the other cases holding supervisors to be teachers within the meaning of Teachers' Tenure Acts are Vigil v. Barela (1962), 71 N.M. 213, 377 P.2d 515; School City of Lafayette v. Highley (1938), 213 Ind. 369, 12 N.E.2d 927; and Mayes v. Bailey (1961), 209 Tenn. 186, 352 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT