Case Digest (G.R. No. 152988)
Facts:
Chiang Kai Shek College, and Chien Yin Shao, petitioners, G.R. No. 152988, August 24, 2004, Supreme Court First Division, Davide Jr., CJ., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Chiang Kai Shek College (CKSC) and its president Chien Yin Shao; respondent is Diana P. Belo, with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) as the tribunals whose decisions are assailed.Diana Belo, a full‑time teacher at CKSC since 1977, applied for a one‑year leave of absence for school year 1992–1993 because of childcare needs; the then principal approved the leave, but on 9 June 1992 Mr. Chien sent Belo a letter stating, among other things, that (1) the school could not assure a teaching load upon her return and (2) only teachers in service could enjoy school benefits, so her children would not be entitled to free tuition. Belo took the leave, and in July 1992 one of her children was publicly sent out of an examination room for nonpayment of tuition, prompting Belo to pay the fees.
After the leave, Belo signified her readiness to teach for 1993–1994 but was denied assignment; the school said her confirmation was late and that non‑permanent teachers had already been hired and assigned loads. Belo filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal, unpaid monetary benefits and damages. The Labor Arbiter (18 October 1995) dismissed her complaint, finding no dismissal but merely lack of available teaching load, and ordered as a compromise that Belo be given a load beginning 1996–1997 without loss of seniority.
Belo appealed to the NLRC, which on 29 February 2000 reversed the Labor Arbiter and found she was constructively dismissed; it ordered immediate reinstatement with full back wages but denied moral damages and attorney’s fees for lack of bad faith. Petitioners sought certiorari with the Court of Appeals; on 12 October 2001 the CA (in CA‑G.R. SP No. 59996) affirmed the NLRC, holding the school policy of non‑assurance of teaching load to those on leave violated Belo’s security of tenure and that the purported “pure question of law” in Belo’s notice of appeal was a misnomer. The CA denied reconsideration on 11 April 2002.
Petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari with the Court (invoking Rules 45 and 65), contending the NLRC gravely abused its discretion by overturning the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings despite Belo’s appea...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the NLRC’s reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s factual findings despite respondent Belo’s statement that her appeal concerned only a pure question of law?
- Was respondent Belo constructively (and thus illegally) dismissed by petitioners when they failed to assign her a teaching load and applied the modified benefits policy against her?
- Did the NLRC comply with Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution in stating clearly and distinctly the facts ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)