G.R. No. 164893 - Duldulao vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164893)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Employment and Appointment

Petitioner Constancia P. Duldulao was hired by respondent Baguio Colleges Foundation (BCF) in June 1987 as a secretary/clerk-typist.
She was initially assigned to the College of Law, a component of the BCF system.

The Complaint and Subsequent Allegations

In August 1996, a law student filed a complaint against petitioner for alleged irregularities in the performance of her work.
Despite being granted several extensions, petitioner failed to submit her answer to the complaint.

The Reassignment Order

On 1 October 1996, Dean Honorato V. Aquino notified respondent’s President, Atty. Edilberto B. Tenefrancia, about petitioner’s failure to file her answer and her admitted fraternization with students.
On the same day, Vice President for Administration Leonardo S. dela Cruz issued a Department Order directing petitioner to report, from 2 October 1996, at the Office of the Principals of the High School and Elementary Departments.

Administrative Motions and Proceedings

On 3 October 1996, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Department Order and requested an additional five-day extension to file her answer.
Dean Aquino informed her that the matter was already elevated to the Executive Board, thus she could no longer avail herself of such relief.
Petitioner eventually filed her answer on 7 October 1996.

Internal Grievance and Investigatory Process

Petitioner filed a case with the BCF Grievance Committee, alleging that her transfer was “unceremonious, capricious, whimsical and arbitrary.”
The case was transferred to the Administrative Investigating Committee because petitioner was not a union member.
On 21 January 1997, the Committee found the Department Order appropriate, aimed at preventing internal controversy within the College.
The recommendation was approved by President Tenefrancia on 7 February 1997.

Fact-Finding Committee Report and Work Attendance

A Fact-Finding Committee was constituted at the request of several College of Law students and submitted its report on 26 May 1997.
The report noted that although petitioner was not guilty of the specific charges, her implementation of college policies had, at times, alienated some students.
Despite the Department Order, petitioner did not report for work and instead took vacation and other leaves from October 1996 to January 1997.

Filing of the Labor Complaint

On 17 February 1997, petitioner filed a complaint for constructive dismissal with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch-Cordillera Administrative Region.
She claimed that the reassignment caused her additional transportation expenses, amounted to a demotion in rank, and was tainted with procedural lapses violating her right to due process.

Decisions of the Labor Arbitral Institutions

On 29 December 1998, Executive Labor Arbiter Jesselito B. Latoja ruled in favor of petitioner by ordering her reinstatement and awarding moral, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
On appeal, the NLRC reversed that decision; it sustained the petitioner’s transfer and dismissed the illegal dismissal claim due to lack of merit.
The Court of Appeals further upheld the NLRC decision, ruling that petitioner was not constructively dismissed.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner maintained that her transfer was a case of constructive dismissal characterized by bad faith and punitive intent, entitling her to backwages, benefits, and moral damages.
Respondent argued that the temporary transfer was justified on several grounds:

To prevent polarization among students due to the pending controversy.
As a response to petitioner’s failure to file her answer.
Based on petitioner’s admitted fraternization with students.

Respondent asserted that the transfer was an exercise of its legitimate management prerogative.

The Central Issue Presented

Whether the transfer or reassignment of petitioner from the College of Law to the High School and Elementary Departments amounts to constructive dismissal.
Whether the administrative procedures and management prerogative were properly exercised in effecting the transfer.

Issues:

Whether petitioner’s transfer constitutes constructive dismissal.

Is the reassignment tantamount to an act of demotion or an infringement of her employment rights?

Whether due process was violated in the manner the transfer was enforced.

Did the timing of the transfer—executed before the submission of her answer and during an ongoing administrative investigation—violate her right to due process?

Whether the reassignment was motivated by bad faith or punitive intent.

Can petitioner demonstrate that the transfer was a manifestation of malevolence or ill-will on the part of the respondent?

Whether the exercise of management prerogative justified the transfer.

Does the reassignment meet the criteria of being a legitimate, temporary administrative decision aimed at preventing internal discord without reducing her rank, salary, or privileges?

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164893) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164893) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164893)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164893)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model