Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51649:gr-160240-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:30:15+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 160240 - Woodridge School (Now Known as Woodridge College Inc) v. Joanne C. Pe Benito, et al.
WOODRIDGE SCHOOL (now known as WOODRIDGE COLLEGE, INC.), Petitioner, v. JOANNE C. PE BENITO and RANDY T. BALAGUER, Respondents.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision1 dated June 30, 2003 and its Resolution2 dated September 26, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 75249. The assailed decision in turn set aside the Resolution3 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated June 28, 2002 in NLRC Case No. RAB-IV-3-13593-01-C (CA No. 030579-02).
We emphatically condemn the school's grave act of wrongdoing when it involved itself on the NSAT and NEAT anomaly. We demand that we be given assurance "in writing" that this illegal and immoral conduct will never happen again, otherwise, we will be obligated as moral guardians of the youth to make more proper action.
We felt betrayed when one of our former colleague[s] who was then regularly employed and was perceived to be harmless and an asset to the school, for no solid basis or apparent investigation conducted by the school, was suddenly expelled from his job.
We wonder until now even after a number of years have already passed, our copies of individual contracts with the school have not yet been furnished to us. We demand that this legal document will be (sic) issued to us for job security and other legal purposes it may serve.
We also demand that AN APPOINTMENT OF PERMANENCY shall be (sic) given to a permanent teacher from the time the teacher is qualified to be permanent based on the duly set terms/standards of permanency of the school.
With these experiences, the teachers felt cheated and that these affect (sic) their sense of worth and credibility. We then ask that the school should as always respect what the teachers deemed to be right and just fitting for the students. After all, the teachers are the ones meeting and facing the students and they know what is due to the students better that (sic) anyone else in the school.
A confrontation between the school administrators and the concerned teachers was held, but no settlement was arrived at.
For failure of the parties to resolve the issues, especially the alleged NSAT/NEAT anomaly, respondents filed a formal complaint against petitioner with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS)8 requesting the latter to undertake a formal investigation, institute appropriate charges, and impose proper sanctions against petitioner.9 During the pendency of the DECS case, and for lack of a positive action from petitioner, respondents appeared on television and spoke over the radio on the alleged NEAT/NSAT anomaly.
On February 28, 2001, petitioner sent two separate Memoranda10 to respondents placing them under preventive suspension for a period of thirty days on the following grounds: 1) uttering defamatory remarks against the school principal in the presence of their co-teachers; 2) announcing to the students and teachers their alleged immediate termination from service; 3) tardiness; 4) spreading false accusations against petitioner; 5) absence without official leave; and 6) appearing on television and speaking over the radio to malign petitioner. In the same memoranda, respondents were required to explain in writing within seventy-two (72) hours why they should not be terminated from their employment. This prompted respondents to commence an action for illegal suspension before the NLRC. The case was docketed as NLRC NCR CASE NO. RAB-IV-3-13593-01-C.
On March 19, 2001, petitioner issued respondents their Notice of Termination,11 each to take effect similarly on March 31, 2001, citing the foregoing grounds. In addition, petitioner informed respondents that they did not qualify as regular employees for their failure to meet the performance standards made known to them at the start of their probationary period.
Respondents then amended their initial complaint, to include illegal dismissal.
On appeal to the NLRC, the Commission affirmed16 the Labor Arbiter's disposition in its entirety. The Commission concluded that respondents' acts, taken together, constitute serious misconduct, warranting their dismissal from service.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present petition is hereby GIVEN DUE COURSE and the writ prayed for accordingly GRANTED. Consequently, the assailed Resolutions of public respondent NLRC are hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is hereby entered declaring the thirty (30)-day suspension of petitioners on February 28, 2001 as illegal and ordering private respondent Woodridge School to pay to both petitioners Joanne C. Pe Benito and Randy T. Balaguer their salaries and benefits accruing during said period of illegal suspension. Woodridge School is also ordered to pay to petitioner Balaguer back wages for the period April 1, 2001 up to March 31, 2002. Finally, it is further ordered to pay each of the petitioners the sums of P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages and attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total amount due.
The appellate court declared the preventive suspension of respondents invalid because it was based on the alleged violation of school regulations on the wearing of uniform, tardiness or absence, and maliciously spreading false accusations against the school, grounds that do not pose a serious threat to the life or property of the employer or of the workers.18 Contrary to the Labor Arbiter and the Commission's findings, the CA concluded that respondents' acts do not constitute serious misconduct. Respondents' act of exposing the alleged NSAT/NEAT anomaly, as well as raising the other issues haunting the school administration, only indicates their concern for the integrity of the government examination and of the school. The use of the mass media was simply the respondents' response to the petitioner's inaction on their grievances.19 No bad faith could be attributed to respondents in acting the way they did.
Now on the substantive issue of the validity of the dismissal and preventive suspension of respondents.
Initially, it should be clarified that this controversy revolves only on respondents' probationary employment. On March 31, 2001, the effective date of their dismissal,33 respondents were not regular or permanent employees; they had not yet completed three (3) years of satisfactory service as academic personnel which would have entitled them to tenure as permanent employees in accordance with the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.34 On that date, Pe Benito's contract of employment still had two months to run, while Balaguer's probationary employment was to expire after one year and two months.
The notices of termination sent by petitioner to respondents stated that the latter failed to qualify as regular employees.38 However, nowhere in the notices did petitioner explain the details of said "failure to qualify" and the standards not met by respondents. We can only speculate that this conclusion was based on the alleged acts of respondents in uttering defamatory remarks against the school and the school principal;39 failure to report for work for two or three times;40 going to class without wearing proper uniform;41 delay in the submission of class records; and non-submission of class syllabi. Yet, other than bare allegations, petitioner failed to substantiate the same by documentary evidence. Considering that respondents were on probation for three years, and they were subjected to yearly evaluation by the students and by the school administrators (principal and vice-principal), it is safe to assume that the results thereof were definitely documented. As such, petitioner should have presented the evaluation reports and other related documents to support its claim, instead of relying solely on the affidavits of their witnesses. The unavoidable inference, therefore, remains that the respondents' dismissal is invalid.
Petitioner anchored its imputation of serious misconduct principally on the respondents' expose of the NSAT/NEAT anomaly. Petitioner argues that by appearing on television and speaking over the radio, respondents were undeserving to become part of the school community, and the school, therefore, could not be compelled to retain in its employ such undisciplined teachers.
In this regard, we find it necessary to go back to where the controversy started, when the concerned teachers, including respondents, presented to petitioner a manifesto, setting forth the issues they wanted the school to address. As correctly observed by the CA, the tenor of the manifesto indicated good faith, as the teachers, in fact, expressly stated that their ultimate objective was not to put the school down, but to work for some changes which would be beneficial to the students, teachers, the school and the country as a whole.48 In their effort to settle the issues amicably, the teachers (including respondents) asked for a dialogue with petitioner but the latter, instead of engaging in creative resolution of the matter, uttered unnecessary statement against respondents. This incident was followed by subsequent acts of petitioner showing abuse of its power over the teachers, especially respondents, who at that time, were under probation. Notwithstanding its claim that respondents were remiss in their duties as teachers during the whole period of probation, it was only after the NSAT/NEAT exposé when petitioner informed respondents of their alleged substandard performance. The chronology of events, therefore, supports the view that respondents' suspension and eventual dismissal from service were tainted with bad faith, as obvious retaliatory acts on the part of petitioner.
In light of this disquisition, it is settled that petitioner failed to comply with the requirement of substantial due process in terminating the employment of respondents.
We now determine whether petitioner had complied with the procedural aspect of lawful dismissal.
Suffice it to state that respondents were afforded their rights to answer to petitioner's allegation and were given the opportunity to present evidence in support of their defense. Nowhere in any of their pleadings did they question the procedure for their termination except to challenge the ground relied upon by petitioner. Ostensibly, therefore, petitioner had complied with the procedural aspect of due process in terminating the employment of respondents. However, we still hold that the dismissal is illegal, because of petitioner's failure to satisfy the substantive aspect thereof, as discussed above.
As probationary employees, respondents' security of tenure is limited to the period of their probation - for Pe Benito, until June 200155 and for Balaguer, June 2002.56 As they were no longer extended new appointments, they are not entitled to reinstatement and full backwages. Rather, Pe Benito is only entitled to her salary for her 30-day preventive suspension.57 As to Balaguer, in addition to his 30-day salary during his illegal preventive suspension, he is entitled to his backwages for the unexpired term of his contract of probationary employment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution dated June 30, 2003 and September 26, 2003, respectively, in CA-G.R. SP No. 75249, are AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with Associate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and Mario L. GuariÃ±a III, concurring; rollo, pp. 47-61.
4 Evidenced by their respective Contracts of Employment, id. at 92-93.
8 Now Department of Education.
12 CA rollo, pp. 35-43.
16 Penned by Commissioner Tito F. Genilo, with Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier and Commissioner Ireneo B. Bernardo, concurring; id. at 45-58.
25 Ballao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162342, October 11, 2006, 504 SCRA 227, 233.
26 Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism (KILUSAN) - Organized Labor Associations in Line Industries and Agriculture (OLALIA) v. Court of Appeals, G.R. NOS. 149158-59, July 24, 2007, 528 SCRA 45, 60; Ateneo de Naga University v. Manalo, G.R. No. 160455, May 9, 2005, 458 SCRA 325, 334.
27 Linton Commercial Co., Inc. v. Hellera, G.R. No. 163147, October 10, 2007, 535 SCRA 434,446.
28 San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa, G.R. No. 149011, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA 392, 411.
29 Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism (KILUSAN) - Organized Labor Associations in Line Industries and Agriculture (OLALIA) v. Court of Appeals, supra note 26; Estribillo v. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 159674, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 218; Damasco v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. NOS. 115755 & 116101, December 4, 2000, 346 SCRA 714.
30 Estribillo v. Department of Agrarian Reform, supra; San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa, supra note 28; De Guia v. De Guia, G.R. No. 135384, April 4, 2001, 356 SCRA 287.
31 Kimberly Independent Labor Union for Solidarity, Activism and Nationalism (KILUSAN) - Organized Labor Associations in Line Industries and Agriculture (OLALIA) v. Court of Appeals, supra note 26, at 60; Ballao v. Court of Appeals, supra note 25, at 233.
33 Per Notices of Termination issued by the petitioner; see rollo, pp. 105-108.
35 Escorpizo v. University of Baguio, 366 Phil. 166, 175-176 (1999).
36 Lacuesta v. Ateneo de Manila University, G.R. No. 152777, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 217, 225; Escorpizo v. University of Baguio, id. at 33.
37 Escorpizo v. University of Baguio, supra, at 33.
42 National Labor Relations Commission v. Salgarino, G.R. No. 164376, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 361, 374.
e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.
The employer may also terminate the employment of any employee due to the installation of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses or the closing or cessation of operation of the establishment or undertaking unless the closing is for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of the Title, x x x.
An employer may terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees: x x x.
45 National Labor Relations Commission v. Salgarino, supra note 42, at 375; Colegio de San Juan de Letran - Calamba v. Villas, 447 Phil. 692, 699 (2003).
46 National Labor Relations Commission v. Salgarino, supra note 42, at 375-376.
50 National Labor Relations Commission v. Salgarino, supra note 42, at 381-382, citing Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, 442 SCRA 573, 608 (2004).
51 National Labor Relations Commission v. Salgarino, supra note 42.
53 Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Book V, Rule XXIII, Sec. 8; Gatbonton v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 146779, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 416, 422; Valiao v. Court of Appeals, 479 Phil. 459, 472 (2004).
55 The contract of employment specifically stated that the probationary period was three (3) years and the contract was to take effect for three (3) years. Since the contract took effect in June 1998, it expired in June 2001; id. at 92.
56 The contract of employment specifically stated that the probationary period was three (3) years and the contract was to take effect for three (3) years. Since the contract took effect in June 1999, it expired in June 2002; id. at 93.
57 Although Pe Benito's contract expired in June 2001 and she was dismissed from the service effective March 31, 2001, she is not entitled to her salary for the months of April and May because it was specifically stated in her contract of employment that she was only entitled to her 10-month salary which is the period when she actually rendered her service; id. at 92.
59 Quadra v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147593, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 221, 227.
60 Gatbonton v. National Labor Relations Commission, supra note 53, at 426, citing Cocoland Development Corporation v. NLRC, 328 Phil. 351, 365-366 (1996).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.