Case Digest (G.R. No. 171303)
Facts:
Elizabeth L. Diaz v. Georgina R. Encanto, Ernesto G. Tabujara, Gemino H. Abad and University of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171303, January 20, 2016, First Division, Leonardo-De Castro, J., writing for the Court. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' April 28, 2005 Decision and January 20, 2006 Resolution in CA‑G.R. CV No. 55165, which reversed the Regional Trial Court's April 17, 1996 Decision and September 17, 1996 Order in Civil Case No. 58397.Petitioner Elizabeth L. Diaz was a long‑time faculty member of the University of the Philippines (U.P.), serving since 1963 and an associate professor in the College of Mass Communication in 1987. After taking sick leave (Nov. 23, 1987–Mar. 1, 1988) and returning to duty March 2, 1988, she applied on May 3, 1988 to U.P.'s Office of the President for a one‑year sabbatical leave with pay effective June 1988–May 1989. Department Chair Cecilia Lazaro initially recommended grant but later, on May 10, 1988, suggested that Diaz be granted any leave of absence for which she qualified; Lazaro removed Diaz's name from the final class schedule for the first semester of AY 1988‑89 without Diaz's prior knowledge. Diaz received salary for June 1988, creating an expectation her sabbatical might be approved.
University officials treated the application through internal channels: Dean Georgina Encanto transmitted recommendations to U.P.'s Secretary and, upon concern about staffing, instructed payroll hold effective July 1, 1988; Chancellor Ernesto Tabujara recommended leave without pay on July 4; Vice‑President for Academic Affairs Gemino Abad was consulted and the matter was reviewed by the Academic Policy Coordinating Committee on July 21, 1988. University administrators (Vice Chancellor Edgardo Pacheco, HRDO Director Pio Frago) declared Diaz AWOL until she officially reported and filed a Report for Duty. Diaz taught in the second semester of AY 1988‑89 but refused to submit the Report for Duty form and therefore did not claim certain salaries; payroll records omitted her from September 1988 to January 1989 and her name was later included only after she filed the Report for Duty in July 1990.
On January 3, 1989 Diaz filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB‑0‑89‑0049) against Encanto, Tabujara and Abad for alleged violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019; the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint on May 4, 1989 finding no manifest partiality, bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. Diaz sought relief from this Court twice (G.R. No. 88834, dismissed for non‑compliance with Circular No. 1‑88; and G.R. No. 89207, dismissed by resolution on Aug. 31, 1989), raising the same issues.
On July 18, 1989 Diaz filed a civil action in the RTC, Pasig (Civil Case No. 58397), claiming nonpayment of salaries from July 1, 1988 and other damages. The RTC rendered judgment for Diaz on April 17, 1996 ordering defendants (except Abueva and later Encanto in an amended Sept. 17, 1996 Order) to pay unpaid salaries, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Defendants appealed...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court in a Rule 45 petition review and resolve alleged factual findings of bad faith, or is bad faith strictly a question of fact outside Rule 45 review?
- Did respondents act in bad faith or abuse their discretion in denying petitioner Diaz’s sabbatical leave application?
- Were respondents justified in withholding petitioner Diaz’s salaries for the periods claimed, and is Diaz entitled to some withheld salaries?
- Is petitioner entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for respondents’ actions?
- What legal inter...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)