Case Digest (G.R. No. 164078)
Facts:
Ama Computer College, Paranaque, et al. v. Rolando A. Austria, G.R. No. 164078, November 23, 2007, Supreme Court Third Division, Nachura, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are AMA Computer College, Paranaque and certain of its officers; respondent is Rolando A. Austria, who was hired on probationary employment as college dean on April 24, 2000. On August 22, 2000 AMA’s OIC, Academic Affairs, issued a memorandum confirming Austria “officially” as Dean effective April 17, 2000 to September 17, 2000 and providing a transportation allowance and a proviso that, if he gave up the deanship or failed to meet standards, he would be considered for a faculty position and lose the deanship allowance.
In August 2000 Austria was charged with leaking test questions, failure to monitor requirements vital to operations, and gross inefficiency. He refuted the charges in a memorandum but was placed on preventive suspension from September 8 to October 10, 2000 and, on September 29, 2000, informed of his dismissal for loss of trust and other grounds. Austria filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal, illegal suspension, nonpayment of salary and 13th month pay, damages and attorney’s fees (NLRC NCR Case No. 30-10-04319-00).
The Labor Arbiter (Decision dated December 6, 2000) found petitioners had observed due process but that Austria had substantially rebutted the charges; the Arbiter concluded, however, that Austria’s deanship had terminated on September 17, 2000 (the letter’s end date) and ordered payment only for September 8–17, 2000 (proportionate salary and transportation allowance), dismissing other claims. Austria appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC (Decision dated March 31, 2003) reversed the Labor Arbiter, declared Austria a regular employee (having served the Handbook’s three-month probationary period), found his dismissal illegal, and awarded separation pay plus full backwages from September 29 to December 6, 2000 (P100,378.80). Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied as late; Austria’s partial MR was denied as well. Petitioners filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition with the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 78455, Decision dated March 29, 2004) found Austria to be a regular employee and affirmed the NLRC with modification as to backwages computation; its denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsidera...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Rolando A. Austria a regular, probationary, or fixed‑term employee?
- If his status was fixed‑term, was his dismissal lawful and what remedies, if any, is he ent...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)