G.R. No. 227070 - Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union vs. Adamson University

Case Summary (G.R. No. 227070)

Petitioner

Orestes Delos Reyes denied the allegation that he angrily and unjustifiably yelled the expletive “anak ng puta” at a 17-year-old student. He asserted alibi and inconsistencies in complainant’s testimony, claimed disparate treatment compared to other employees, alleged bias by the Ad Hoc Committee, and argued that the utterance per se is not defamatory nor automatically gross misconduct. He also contended that his dismissal was motivated by his union activities and opposition to the school’s K‑12 policies.

Respondent

Adamson University maintained that it accorded due process, that the dismissal was for gross misconduct and unprofessional behavior in violation of Section 16(4) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 (Education Act of 1982), and that the dismissal was unrelated to union activities. The university relied on witness testimony, corroboration, and petitioner’s prior incidents of unprofessional conduct. It defended its publication of a clarification about the reason for dismissal as necessary to correct misinformation.

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Administrative complaint received September 5, 2014; Ad Hoc Committee created September 11, 2014; show cause issued September 12, 2014; hearing on October 7, 2014; Notice of Dismissal issued October 24, 2014; respondent’s paid advertisement published October 30, 2014.
The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators rendered a decision on May 12, 2015 declaring the dismissal valid.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in an April 28, 2016 Decision and denied reconsideration in an August 17, 2016 Resolution.
The Supreme Court reviewed the Rule 45 petition; the Supreme Court’s decision affirms the lower courts (case references and dates are from the record).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statutes and authorities relied upon in the decision: Article 297 (formerly Art. 282) of the Labor Code (grounds for termination by employer), Section 16 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 (Teacher’s Obligations in the Education Act of 1982), and Article 259/258 provisions on unfair labor practices in the Labor Code. The decision applies the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the operative constitution for this post‑1990 decision.

Relevant Facts Found by the Lower Tribunals

Paula Mae’s account: she and Delos Reyes were on opposite sides of a door; when she stepped aside he allegedly exclaimed “anak ng puta” and walked on; the incident caused emotional trauma. Three students corroborated aspects of the incident and related testimony. The record also contains prior complaints and memoranda reflecting petitioner’s earlier unprofessional behavior toward colleagues and students, including incidents involving shouting, offensive gestures, threatening remarks, and confrontations with department chairs.

Administrative Proceedings and Petitioner’s Response

An Ad Hoc Investigating and Hearing Committee issued a show cause memorandum; petitioner submitted a written explanation on AUFEA letterhead, denied the accusation, and filed a counter‑complaint against Paula Mae. Petitioner participated in the administrative hearing with counsel, but the committee and subsequently the university administration maintained their findings of gross misconduct and issued dismissal. Petitioner sought reconsideration of dismissal, which was denied.

Arbitration and Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators’ Decision

The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, after evaluating evidence, concluded that Delos Reyes was validly dismissed. The panel emphasized that as a teacher of a Catholic institution and as union president he was expected to exhibit conduct worthy of emulation; the panel treated the utterance “anak ng puta” directed at a minor without provocation as grave depravity and weighed the prior complaints of unprofessional behavior against him. The panel’s decision dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and affirmed the validity of the dismissal.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals found that petitioner received procedural due process and upheld the panel’s factual findings. The CA found petitioner guilty of gross misconduct, gave weight to the minor’s testimony and family circumstances, and found petitioner’s defenses (alibi and denial) unsubstantiated. The CA also ruled that Adamson was not liable for unfair labor practice because petitioner’s dismissal did not threaten the Union’s existence and a union officeholder is not immune from disciplinary action for gross misconduct.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

(1) Whether petitioner was validly dismissed from employment; and (2) whether petitioner’s dismissal constituted an unfair labor practice.

Standard of Review Applied by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court limited its review under Rule 45 to questions of law and did not reweigh factual findings made by the Court of Appeals and the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. The Court reiterated that factual findings of quasi‑judicial bodies, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive and binding unless they are devoid of support or based on gross misapprehension of facts.

Supreme Court Findings on Misconduct and Wrongful Intent

The Court recognized that the utterance “anak ng puta” can, in some contexts, function as an expletive expressing surprise, annoyance, or displeasure rather than a deliberate personal attack, and thus an expletive uttered in the spur of the moment is not grave misconduct per se. However, the Court found that petitioner’s subsequent acts—denial of the incident, refusal to apologize, filing of a counter‑complaint against the minor, refusal to sign receiving copies of notices, and use of union letterhead in personal defenses—demonstrated willful and wrongful intent. These succeeding acts negated professionalism and showed that the misconduct was not a mere error of judgment but willful conduct, thereby satisfying the wrongful intent component required for serious misconduct.

Consideration of Prior Incidents and Principle of Totality

The Supreme Court relied on the record of previous complaints and admonitions against petitioner for similar unprofessional conduct toward colleagues and students. Applying the principle of totality of infractions, the Court treated petitioner’s record as relevant in determining the justness of dismissal: repeated misconduct and a combative disposition over time justified the employer’s decision to dismiss as a measure of self‑protection and maintenance of institutional discipline.

Unfair Labor P

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 227070)

Parties

Petitioners: Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union (AUFEU), represented by its president, and Orestes Delos Reyes (Delos Reyes), a university professor and assistant chairperson of the Social Sciences Department; Delos Reyes was also the sitting president of the Union, the duly registered labor union and sole and exclusive bargaining agent of Adamson University's faculty and non‑academic personnel.
Respondent: Adamson University (Adamson).
Complainants: Josephine Esplago (mother) and her daughter, 17‑year‑old Paula Mae Perlas (Paula Mae), a third‑year psychology student at Adamson, who filed the complaint alleging verbal abuse and emotional trauma of a minor.

Factual Background

On September 5, 2014, Adamson received an administrative complaint by Josephine on behalf of Paula Mae alleging that Delos Reyes violated the University Code of Conduct and Republic Act No. 7610 for abusing a minor.
The alleged incident occurred when Paula Mae, exiting the faculty room of the Department of Foreign Languages, and Delos Reyes, on the other side of the door, were each holding the doorknob; when Paula Mae stepped aside, Delos Reyes allegedly exclaimed "anak ng puta" and walked on, causing emotional trauma to Paula Mae.
On September 11, 2014, the University President created an Ad Hoc Investigating and Hearing Committee (Ad Hoc Committee) to hear the case and submit findings and recommendations to the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
On September 12, 2014, the Ad Hoc Committee issued a show cause memorandum to Delos Reyes, requiring explanation within five days why he should not be charged with gross misconduct and unprofessional behavior.
Delos Reyes sought and was granted a three‑day extension; he then submitted a written explanation on the Union's letterhead, signed as its president, denying the accusations and filing a counter‑complaint against Paula Mae for allegedly maligning and tarnishing his reputation.
The separate complaints were consolidated; a hearing was held on October 7, 2014, where Delos Reyes was represented by counsel.
On October 24, 2014, Adamson issued a Notice of Dismissal to Delos Reyes; his motion for reconsideration was denied.
On October 30, 2014, Adamson published a paid advertisement in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and on its website announcing and clarifying the grounds for Delos Reyes' dismissal; Delos Reyes contended that the advertisement tarnished his reputation.
Delos Reyes filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board; the parties instead agreed to voluntary arbitration.

Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators’ Proceedings and Findings

The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators issued a Decision on May 12, 2015, declaring Delos Reyes’ dismissal valid and dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.
The Panel found that, as a teacher of a Catholic educational institution and as Union president, Delos Reyes was expected to "exhibit conduct worthy of emulation" but failed to do so.
The Panel characterized the use of the words "anak ng puta" without provocation, especially when directed at a minor student, as a grave depravity and weighed against Delos Reyes other previously filed complaints showing unprofessional behavior.
The dispositive portion of the Panel’s Decision: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered DECLARING that the dismissal of individual complainant Orestes Delos Reyes is valid and DISMISSING the instant complaint for lack of merit. SO ORDERED."

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Findings

Delos Reyes filed a Petition for Review from the Panel’s Decision to the Court of Appeals.
In its April 28, 2016 Decision, the Court of Appeals preliminarily found that Delos Reyes was amply accorded procedural due process.
The Court of Appeals found Delos Reyes guilty of gross misconduct after considering Paula Mae’s minority and her family circumstances, and judged Delos Reyes’ defenses of alibi and denial to be unsubstantiated and weak versus Paula Mae’s positive, categorical testimony.
The Court of Appeals further ruled Adamson was not liable for unfair labor practice (ULP) because Delos Reyes’ dismissal did not threaten the Union’s existence; his position as Union head did not confer immunity from suit or liability for gross misconduct.
The Court of Appeals denied Delos Reyes’ Motion for Reconsideration in an August 17, 2016 Resolution.

Supreme Court Petition and Relief Sought

Delos Reyes filed a Rule 45 petition with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 227070), challenging the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution.
Petitioner’s principal claims included alleged disparate treatment compared to other employees, haste and bias in the Ad Hoc Committee’s proceedings, denial of opportunity to confront unrelated complaints, presence and assistance of university counsel at his hearing, and that the Ad Hoc Committee acted as counsel to Paula Mae.
On facts of the incident he disputed that he "unjustifiably, angrily" yelled "anak ng puta," raised purported inconsistencies in Paula Mae's testimony (claiming he was in his classroom), denied motive to malign a student who was not his student, and argued the utterance per se is not defamatory nor constitutive of gross misconduct.
Petitioner also argued that dismissal was excessive given his 20 years’ service, his alleged professionalism and popularity among students, and asserted that his dismissal was motivated by anti‑union animus tied to his stance against Adamson’s K‑12 policies (i.e., alleged unfair labor practice).
Petitioner contested the publication of the paid advertisement as defamatory and damaging to his and his family's reputation.

Respondent’s Position and Defenses

Adamson argued that Delos Reyes raised mostly questions of fact inappropriate for Rule 45 review and was bound by the Panel’s Decision under the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement which provided finality for arbitration decisions.
Respondent contended Delos Reyes improperly impleaded the Union and noted the Verification attached to the Petition showed only Delos Reyes as petitioner.
Adamson maintained the controversy had no connection to Union activities or the Union’s right to self‑organize; the Union and Adamson still maintained a good relationship and entered into a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Respondent asserted due process had been afforded: written explanation, memorandum, and an administrative hearing where Delos Reyes had counsel and full opportunity to confront witnesses.
On the merits, Adamson emphasized Paula Mae’s emotional trauma persisted weeks after the incident and that in a Catholic school a professor is expected to protect student interests and welfare.
Adamson argued the utterance was delivered in a harsh and angry manner, not jokingly or in surprise, and that the minor's testimony was corroborated by three students who witnessed the incident and spoke to Paula Mae.
Adamson pointed to Delos Reyes’ refusal to apologize, his filing of a counter‑complaint against Paula Mae, a pattern of prior complaints showing abrasive personality and unprofessional behavior, refusal to sign rece