Case Digest (G.R. No. 176717)
Facts:
Evangeline C. Cobarrubias v. Saint Louis University, Inc., G.R. No. 176717, March 17, 2010, Supreme Court First Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Evangeline C. Cobarrubias was hired by respondent Saint Louis University, Inc. (SLU) as a faculty member in 1982. Under the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Article 7, Section 7.7, a college teaching employee who is "retained for three (3) cumulative years in five (5) years" shall be placed on forced leave for one regular semester during which benefits shall be suspended; three cumulative years below an 80 rating in five years would be grounds for termination. SLU's Evaluation Manual and Faculty Promotion guidelines evaluated faculty according to rank and provided that failure to obtain a required rating would result in retention in rank.
By letter dated May 23, 2003 SLU notified petitioner that she had failed to meet required minimum evaluation ratings within the relevant five-year period and was therefore placed on forced leave for the first semester of school year 2003–2004; she was told to signify by September 12, 2003 her readiness to teach the Second Semester. Petitioner’s five-year ratings showed several years marginally below required minima, promotions and rank adjustments (the record summarized the year-by-year ratings and ranks). In June 2003 petitioner attempted to report but received no teaching load because she had been placed on forced leave.
On June 5, 2003 petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and damages before the Regional Arbitration Branch, Cordillera Administrative Region of the NLRC; the Executive Labor Arbiter later referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board. SLU thereafter sent repeated letters (October 13, November 8, November 12 and November 28, 2003) informing petitioner that a teaching load had been prepared, urging her to report and demanding explanation or face reassignment of her load; petitioner did not respond. By letter dated December 6, 2003 SLU dismissed petitioner for abandonment.
Before the Voluntary Arbitrator the issues framed were the legality of dismissal for abandonment, the validity of the forced leave, and whether due process was observed. In a Decision dated July 11, 2005 the Arbiter declared Article 7, Section 7.7 of the CBA void as imposing an undue penalty contrary to the University’s Evaluation Manual; found due process lacking; ruled that petitioner’s failure to report did not constitute abandonment; and ordered reinstatement with backwages, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Respondent SLU sought review. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated May 23, 2006 (Reyes, J., penned; Tolentino and Castillo, JJ., concurring), reversed the Arbiter. The CA held the Voluntary Arbiter exceeded his authority in nullifying the CBA provision, found that petitioner abandoned her work after repeated notices, held that SLU's rating notifications satisfied due process (citing Pena v. NLRC), but resolved ambiguity in t...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner abandon her employment despite the pendency of her June 5, 2003 complaint and repeated notices from respondent?
- Is petitioner entitled to the moral, exemplary damages and attorney's fees awarded by the Volunt...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)