A.M. No. 439-MJ - Amosco vs. Magro

On January 11, 1956, the teaching staff of Pagbilao Academy was convened by the school principal to select the muse for the sophomore class.
A disagreement arose during the meeting between petitioner Dominador S. Jamilano and his co-teacher Catalina Luna regarding the choice of the muse.
During the discussion, Jamilano asserted his seniority by stating in Tagalog that he should be obeyed because of his long tenure, while Luna replied by referring to him as "yabang" (boastful or arrogant).
Jamilano, feeling insulted by Luna’s remark, absented himself from classes for the next two days and sought legal advice in Manila.
On January 13, 1956, Luna visited Jamilano’s residence with two other teachers in an attempt to apologize and settle the matter amicably, but Jamilano directed her to handle the matter through his lawyer.
The situation escalated when, on January 17, 1956, Jamilano filed a criminal complaint for serious oral defamation against Luna at the Justice of the Peace Court of Pagbilao.

In response to the incident, the Board of Trustees of Pagbilao Academy convened a special meeting on January 18, 1956, to investigate the dispute.
The Board passed a resolution charging Jamilano with several offenses:

Grave misconduct for bypassing the Board of Trustees and directly approaching the court without giving the Board an opportunity to investigate.
Violation of civil service rules for unapproved absences on January 12 and 13, 1956, and traveling to Manila for personal interests.
Breach of the professional ethics of the teaching profession.
Demanding a payment of P500.00 as a precondition for an amicable settlement with Luna.
Other acts of inefficiency in the performance of his duties.

Consequently, Jamilano was suspended from his teaching position without pay from January 19, 1956, until the end of the school year.
His subsequent motion for reconsideration before the school authorities was denied.

On March 5, 1957, Jamilano filed an administrative complaint with the Bureau of Private Schools against Pagbilao Academy.

After due hearings, the bureau cleared Jamilano of all charges, declaring the suspension unjustified.
The decision was affirmed by the Secretary of Education.

Separately, on February 18, 1957, Jamilano initiated a civil case for damages (Civil Case No. 5958) which was decided on September 26, 1957, in his favor, holding his suspension unjustified and awarding him:

A concurrent criminal case against Luna was filed (resulting in People vs. Luna):

Initially, Luna was convicted for slight oral defamation.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals acquitted Luna, holding that the remark “yabang” was not defamatory when considered in context.

The Pagbilao Academy later sought a new trial in the civil case by introducing the appellate decision in People vs. Luna as newly discovered evidence, arguing that the criminal case was the main cause of Jamilano’s suspension.

The trial court denied the motion for new trial on the ground that the appellate decision did not constitute res judicata in the civil matter.
The Academy appealed the denial, leading to a contentious review of the facts and circumstances.

Whether the suspension of Jamilano was in violation of his contractual right, given that his fixed-term contract with Pagbilao Academy guaranteed protection against dismissal or suspension without just cause.
Whether the contractual provision requiring notification to the Director of Private Schools provided an effective safeguard that was breached by the Academy.

Whether the Academy properly exercised its employer discretion in dismissing or suspending an employee, especially in light of internal regulations and the necessity of administrative investigation.
Whether Jamilano’s failure to refer the matter first to the Board of Trustees before seeking legal recourse affected the justification of his claim.

Whether Jamilano’s decision to pursue a criminal complaint for oral defamation constituted a vindictive act aimed at embarrassing Luna and the Academy.
Whether such recourse to the courts was justified under the circumstances, particularly after his attempt at an amicable settlement had been made.

Whether the Court of Appeals’ decision in the criminal case (People vs. Luna) should be considered as res judicata in the subsequent civil case for damages.
Whether the inherent findings in the criminal case regarding the non-defamatory nature of “yabang” undermine or justify the disciplinary action taken by the Academy.