G.R. No. L-15237 - Santiago vs. Ramirez

A Petition for Review was filed under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by petitioners led by Nona S. Ricafort and other members of the Board of Trustees (BoT) of the Eulogio “Amang” Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST).
The petition sought to reverse and set aside the lower court decisions declaring illegal an unnumbered resolution passed by the BoT which treated Maura V. Bautista, the respondent and then-President of EARIST, as having mandatorily retired at age 65.
EARIST, being a state college established under Presidential Decree No. 1524 and governed by its charter and Republic Act No. 8292 (Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997), served as the institutional backdrop.

On December 8, 1999, respondent was first appointed as President of EARIST by the then CHED Chairman, for a term of four years.
Before the expiration of her initial term, the BoT took steps to reappoint her:

On May 14, 2003, Board Resolution No. 12-2003 approved her reappointment effective December 16, 2003, up to the age of 65 while leaving room for extension beyond that age.
On August 13, 2003, Board Resolution No. 15-2003 approved her reappointment for an additional full term of four years.
On September 5, 2003, Rolando R. Dizon, then CHED Chairman on behalf of the BoT, finalized her reappointment effective until December 17, 2007.

In 2005, upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65, respondent applied for and was granted retirement benefits by the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), effective December 1, 2005.

Despite receiving these benefits, respondent continued to perform her duties as President of EARIST and never tendered a resignation.
On April 19, 2006, the BoT, now headed by petitioner, passed an unnumbered resolution noting respondent’s mandatory retirement and, in a memorandum, designated Dr. Enrique R. Hilario as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Office of the President.

The resolution explicitly noted that respondent had mandatorily retired effective December 2005 and declared that all resolutions extending her appointment beyond the age of 65 were revoked.
A notice dated April 19, 2006 informed the officers, faculty, students, and staff of this designation.

On April 26, 2006, respondent filed a Petition for Injunction (with applications for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction) to:

Restrain the implementation of the BoT’s unnumbered resolution and memorandum.
Order Dr. Hilario to cease acting as OIC and secure her reinstatement as President.
Seek damages—including moral, exemplary, and attorney’s fees.

The RTC Branch 41 initially dismissed the petition on May 2, 2006, holding that the petition was not the proper remedy.
Upon motion for reconsideration:

The RTC set aside its earlier dismissal and, on June 13, 2006, issued a Temporary Restraining Order.
This TRO restrained the petitioners from implementing the resolution and compelled the reinstatement of respondent.
Due to a subsequent Motion for Inhibition, the case was re-affixed to RTC Branch 51.

It held that the designation of Dr. Hilario as OIC was improper because respondent’s office was not vacated as provided in Section 30 of the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) for RA 8292.
Although an injunction was considered tenable, the court ruled it improper since the reappointment was valid until December 2007.
The court awarded actual damages (for unearned salary from April 19, 2006 to December 2007), exemplary damages of P50,000.00, and attorney’s fees of P20,000.00, holding petitioner solely liable.

It upheld the awards of actual damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees against petitioner.
The CA found petitioner’s actions, particularly her personal abuse of power in designating an OIC, to be tainted with bad faith.

Whether the award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees against the petitioner has a proper legal basis considering the allegation that the BoT acted in good faith.

Whether the BoT’s unnumbered resolution, which declared respondent’s mandatory retirement upon reaching the age of 65, was legal and proper.
Whether respondent’s reappointment, effective until December 2007, should preclude mandatory retirement.

Whether it is proper for the petition to combine mixed questions of fact and law given that only questions of law are subject to review on certiorari.
Whether the factual findings of the lower courts—particularly regarding the abuse of power—should be re-examined by the Court.

Whether the designation of Dr. Enrique R. Hilario as OIC, following respondent’s retirement benefit approval, followed due process.
Whether the exclusion of the respondent from a decisive conference constituted a denial of due process.