G.R. No. 193857 - Barba vs. Liceo de Cagayan University

Dr. Ma. Mercedes L. Barba, the petitioner, initially served as a medical officer/school physician for Liceo de Cagayan University, Inc. (the respondent) beginning on July 8, 1993.
In July 1994, she was selected to receive a scholarship grant to pursue a three-year residency in Rehabilitation Medicine at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center under a Scholarship Contract that required her to serve the school for at least ten years in a position related to her field after training.
After completing her residency in June 1997, petitioner resumed work for the respondent and was subsequently appointed as Acting Dean and later as the formal Dean of the College of Physical Therapy.
Her appointment as Dean was made effective on July 1, 2002, through an appointment letter indicating a three-year term, subject to revocation for valid cause, and explicitly stating that her position was “one of trust and confidence” and governed by the University Administrative Personnel and Faculty Manuals as well as the Labor Code.

The College of Physical Therapy experienced a dramatic decline in student enrollment—from 1,121 students in 1995–1996 to only 29 and 20 students in the subsequent academic periods.
As a consequence, the respondent decided to freeze the operations of the College of Physical Therapy, culminating in an official communication on March 16, 2005, that her services as dean would end at the close of the school year.
The closure was effected on March 31, 2005, and the petitioner went on leave without pay beginning April 9, 2005.

On April 27, 2005, the respondent’s Executive Vice President, through the Vice President for Academic Affairs, issued instructions for the petitioner to return to work starting June 1, 2005, but in a new role as a full-time faculty member in the College of Nursing, which was a deviation from her established role as college dean.
Petitioner contended that the transfer from her position as Dean to a regular faculty assignment amounted to a demotion and constituted constructive dismissal, as it was not in line with her scholarship and training in Rehabilitation Medicine.
Subsequent correspondences on June 21 and June 24, 2005, reaffirmed the requirement for her to report for work in the new capacity, with the threat of dismissal for non-compliance.
On June 28, 2005, following her failure to report for work, the respondent issued a notice terminating her services on the grounds of abandonment.
Prior to the termination, on June 22, 2005, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal dismissal, seeking separation pay, backwages, and retirement benefits on the basis of constructive dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter, in a September 29, 2006 decision, ruled that the petitioner was not constructively dismissed since her assignment as a full-time professor in the College of Nursing did not equate to a demotion.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) later reversed the Labor Arbiter’s ruling on September 25, 2007, holding that the transfer did indeed amount to demotion and constructive dismissal, thereby entitling the petitioner to backwages and separation pay.
The respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied, as reflected in the NLRC resolution dated June 30, 2008.

The respondent, through a Supplemental Petition before the CA, raised the issue of jurisdiction by asserting that the petitioner, as College Dean, was a corporate officer under the respondent’s by-laws.
In its original October 22, 2009 Decision, the CA reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s ruling and dismissed the jurisdictional contention.
However, on March 29, 2010, the CA issued an Amended Decision reversing its earlier stance, holding that the position of College Dean was indeed a corporate office, thereby divesting the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC of jurisdiction over the case.
A subsequent CA Resolution dated September 14, 2010 denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the Amended Decision.
Ultimately, the decisive issue raised in the petition for review on certiorari was focused on whether the petitioner was, in fact, an employee or a corporate officer of the respondent, since this determination would affect the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals over her complaint for constructive dismissal.

Whether Dr. Ma. Mercedes L. Barba, as College Dean, is considered a corporate officer of Liceo de Cagayan University or an employee.
The determination hinges on the interpretation of the university's by-laws and the nature of her appointment.

Whether the Labor Arbiter and NLRC had jurisdiction over the petitioner’s complaint for constructive or illegal dismissal if she were a corporate officer.
Whether the respondent’s raising of lack of jurisdiction in a Supplemental Petition after participating in the lower proceedings is procedurally and substantively valid.

Whether the transfer from her deanship to a teaching assignment in the College of Nursing amounted to a demotion or an unjustified change in the terms of her employment.
Whether such a transfer can be justified as a necessary administrative adjustment following the closure of the College of Physical Therapy.