Title
Garciano vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 96126
Decision Date
Aug 10, 1992
The Supreme Court dismissed a teacher's discrimination and unjust dismissal claim against a school, ruling she was not entitled to damages due to her voluntary decision to stop teaching and the respondents' lack of authority to terminate her.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 96126)

Facts:

  • Esteria F. Garciano was employed as a teacher at the Immaculate Concepcion Institute.
  • In January 1982, she applied for an indefinite leave of absence to accompany her daughter to Austria.
  • The leave was recommended by the school principal, Emerito Labajo, and approved by the Board President.
  • On June 1, 1982, while Garciano was abroad, Labajo informed her husband of her termination due to the absence of a written contract and difficulty in finding a substitute teacher.
  • Upon her return in late June 1982, Garciano received the termination letter.
  • On July 7, 1982, the Board of Directors reinstated her effective July 5, 1982, declaring the termination null and void.
  • Following her reinstatement, several Board members resigned due to faculty backlash.
  • Garciano filed a complaint for damages against the respondents in September 1982, alleging discrimination and illegal dismissal.
  • The trial court ruled in her favor in August 1985, awarding substantial damages.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed this decision in August 1990, dismissing the complaint and absolving the respondents of liability.
  • Garciano's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading her to file a petition for review.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, affirming the Court of Appeals' decision.
  • The Court held that the private respondents were not liable for damages as they lacked the authority to te...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court determined that the Board of Directors had exclusive authority to hire and fire teachers.
  • The termination letter sent to Garciano lacked legal effect as it was not authorized by the Board.
  • Garciano was aware of the Board's authority, and their reinstatement order nullified any prior termination notice.
  • The Court noted that Garciano's choice not to return to work was voluntary,...continue reading

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.