Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union vs. Adamson University

Factual Background

The complainant was a minor Adamson University student, Paula Mae Perlas, whose mother, Josephine Esplago, alleged that on September 1 or 2, 2014 she encountered petitioner Orestes Delos Reyes, a professor and assistant chairperson of the Social Sciences Department, holding a doorknob such that Paula Mae and Delos Reyes both held the door. Josephine alleged that Delos Reyes exclaimed the words “anak ng puta” and walked on, causing emotional trauma to the minor. Delos Reyes denied the accusation, initially responded using the Union letterhead as its president, and filed a counter-complaint alleging reputational maligning.

Administrative Proceedings

The University President constituted an Ad Hoc Investigating and Hearing Committee to inquire into the complaint. The Committee issued a show-cause memorandum requiring Delos Reyes to explain within five days why he should not be charged with gross misconduct and unprofessional behavior. The Committee granted a brief extension and thereafter conducted a consolidated hearing on October 7, 2014 at which Delos Reyes was represented by counsel. On October 24, 2014, the University issued a Notice of Dismissal. Reconsideration was denied.

Arbitration before the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators

The parties agreed to voluntary arbitration before a Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators. After hearing the evidence, the Panel rendered a Decision on May 12, 2015 declaring the dismissal of Orestes Delos Reyes valid. The Panel emphasized that as a teacher in a Catholic institution and as the Union president, Delos Reyes was expected to exhibit conduct worthy of emulation but failed to do so. The Panel deemed the utterance directed at a minor as grave depravity, relied on corroborative testimony and noted prior complaints reflecting unprofessional behavior. The Panel dismissed the complaint for lack of merit insofar as reinstatement or relief was sought.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

Delos Reyes filed a petition for review to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in its April 28, 2016 Decision, found that Delos Reyes was amply accorded procedural due process and affirmed the finding of gross misconduct. The appellate court credited the minor student’s positive and categorical testimony, discounted petitioner’s alibi and denial, and found that the dismissal did not constitute unfair labor practice because it did not threaten the Union’s existence. The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration by Resolution dated August 17, 2016.

Petitioner's Contentions on Review

In his Rule 45 petition, petitioner argued that factual disputes precluded dismissal and that the University treated him disparately compared to other employees. He claimed bias by the Ad Hoc Committee, asserted procedural irregularities including the Committee’s counsel attending the hearing, and contended that the Committee functioned as the complainant’s counsel. Petitioner denied uttering the phrase “anak ng puta” in an angry or insulting manner, urged that the phrase was an expletive not amounting to gross misconduct, invoked his twenty-year service and unblemished record to argue mitigation, and maintained that his dismissal was motivated by anti-union animus tied to his opposition to the K-12 policy, thus amounting to unfair labor practice.

Respondent's Contentions on Review

Respondent asserted that petitioner raised predominantly factual issues inappropriate for Rule 45 review, and that the parties were bound by the arbitration clause in their Collective Bargaining Agreement which rendered the Panel’s decision final. The University defended the impartiality of the Ad Hoc Committee and of the proceedings, emphasized the minor’s emotional trauma and the corroborative testimony of students, and relied on disciplinary and historical complaints against petitioner demonstrating a pattern of unprofessional conduct. Respondent denied that the newspaper clarification amounted to malicious publicity and explained it as an effort to correct misinformation.

Issues for Resolution

The Court stated the dispositive issues as whether petitioner was validly dismissed from employment and whether that dismissal constituted unfair labor practice under the Labor Code.

Standard of Review Employed

The Court reiterated that under Rule 45 review from a Court of Appeals determination, it could entertain only questions of law and could not re-evaluate factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies unless such findings were devoid of support or based on gross misapprehension of facts. The Court cited Fuji Television Network, Inc. v. Espiritu, Meralco Industrial v. NLRC, and Career Philippines v. Serna to underscore the limited scope of its review and the conclusive nature of affirmed factual findings.

Court's Analysis on Misconduct and Termination

The Court identified statutory authority for termination in Article 297 of the Labor Code and framed the inquiry within the doctrine that misconduct warrants dismissal only when performed with wrongful intent. The Court recognized that the utterance “anak ng puta” is sometimes an expletive used to express surprise or exasperation and that such utterance, standing alone and uttered in the heat of the moment, need not be grave misconduct. The Court found, however, that petitioner’s subsequent willful acts transformed the misconduct into serious misconduct: denial of the act, refusal to apologize, filing of a counter-complaint against a minor complainant, refusal to sign receipt of notices, and the use of Union letterhead in defending himself. Those acts demonstrated wrongful intent and a lack of professionalism inconsistent with a teacher’s duty under Section 16 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 2