G.R. No. 176717 - Cobarrubias vs. Saint Louis University, Inc.

Petitioner, Evangeline C. Cobarrubias, was hired in 1982 as a faculty member of Saint Louis University, Inc. in Baguio City.
The employment relationship was governed in part by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the respondent and the Union of Faculty and Employees.
The University maintained an Evaluation Manual and a Faculty Promotion Handbook which set standards for performance ratings and promotion based on faculty rank.

The CBA, specifically Article 7, Section 7, provided that a teaching employee who failed the yearly evaluation could be subject to punishment:

If retained for three cumulative years within a five-year period, the employee would be placed on forced leave for one semester with all benefits suspended.
If the employee's rating fell below 80 for three cumulative years in five years, termination could ensue.

The respondent relied on said provision to justify imposing a forced leave on petitioner during the first semester of the 2003-2004 school year.
The University’s internal guidelines indicated that failure to achieve the required rating would result in being “retained in rank” rather than automatic termination, with promotion dependent on meeting predetermined performance targets.

Over the five-year period preceding the forced leave, petitioner’s ratings were:

1998-99: 85.50 (required 86; retained as Asst. Professor III+)
1999-2000: 85 (required 86; retained as Asst. Professor III+)
2000-2001: 87 (passed; maximum rank obtained)
2001-2002: 90.50 (passed; maximum rank obtained with subsequent rank-adjustment)
2002-2003: 85 (required 87; retained as Associate Professor I-2)

On May 23, 2003, the respondent’s President notified petitioner in writing that she had not met the minimum evaluation rating requirement over the designated five-year period and thus would be placed on forced leave during the first semester of the 2003-2004 school year.
In the same letter, petitioner was instructed to notify the University in writing of her readiness to resume teaching for the second semester on or before the specified deadline (30 days before semester’s end or by September 12, 2003).

Before the start of the second semester or by June 2003, petitioner attempted to report for work but was denied due to the enforced leave status.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on June 5, 2003, seeking reinstatement, backwages, and various damages.
The respondent continued to send multiple letters (October 13, November 8, November 12, and November 28, 2003) instructing petitioner to report for work or provide explanations.
After petitioner failed to respond to the notices, the respondent formally dismissed her on December 6, 2003 for abandonment.

Petitioner initially filed her case with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC, which later referred the case to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board due to jurisdictional issues.
The Voluntary Arbitrator ruled on July 11, 2005, declaring the forced leave clause in the CBA void as it expanded beyond the University’s established evaluation policies, and ordered petitioner’s reinstatement along with damage awards.
On May 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals reversed the Arbiter’s decision, holding that:

The Arbiter exceeded his authority by nullifying the CBA provision.
The provisions of the CBA were to be interpreted within the contractual framework, and despite doubts regarding the reckoning of the five-year period, petitioner’s abandonment of her duties was established.
Even though petitioner had been given ample opportunity to contest her performance ratings, her failure to report for work effectively constituted abandonment.

The respondent was legally justified in suspending petitioner and subsequently dismissing her.
The forced leave, while deemed illegal when interpreted outside the strict contractual context, led to the eventual conclusion on dismissal.

Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration was denied, and her Petition for Review on Certiorari was ultimately dismissed.

Whether petitioner’s dismissal on the ground of abandonment of her work was legally justified.
Whether the failure to report for work, despite multiple written notices, constituted a clear case of abandonment.

The legality of imposing a forced leave (with suspension of all benefits) as provided in the CBA for faculty who repeatedly failed to meet the minimum evaluation rating.
The extent to which the forced leave clause conforms with or deviates from the University’s established performance evaluation and promotion guidelines.

Whether the University complied with due process requirements, including the twin elements of notice and hearing, before dismissing petitioner.
Whether petitioner’s filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal negated an intention to sever the employment relationship and thus precluded a finding of abandonment.