Title
Supreme Court
Barba vs. Liceo de Cagayan University
Case
G.R. No. 193857
Decision Date
Nov 28, 2012
Dean transferred after college closure; claimed constructive dismissal. Court ruled transfer valid, no dismissal, and no forum shopping; upheld employee status.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 194530)

Background and Employment Details

Dr. Barba commenced her employment with the respondent on July 8, 1993, transitioning from a medical officer to a dean by June 19, 2002. The respondent granted her a scholarship for residency training in Rehabilitation Medicine, binding her to serve in the institution post-training for a minimum of ten years as per the Scholarship Contract.

Decline in Enrollment and Closure of the College

During the academic years 2003-2004 and 2004-2005, the College of Physical Therapy experienced significant enrollment drops, leading to its closure on March 31, 2005. Upon closure, Dr. Barba was placed on leave without pay starting April 9, 2005, and was subsequently ordered to report to the College of Nursing for assignment as a full-time faculty member, a request she contested on grounds of implied demotion.

Labor Arbiter's Ruling

In a September 29, 2006 ruling, the Labor Arbiter stated there was no constructive dismissal as Dr. Barba’s reassignment was not a demotion and thus did not warrant separation pay. The Arbiter ruled that the assignment post-closure followed institutional practice and did not violate any employment terms.

NLRC’s Reversal

On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision on September 25, 2007, asserting that Dr. Barba's reassignment constituted constructive dismissal. The NLRC posited that a transition to a lower status role, despite maintaining salary and seniority, merited relief.

Court of Appeals' Initial Decision

Respondent subsequently challenged the NLRC’s ruling in the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the labor tribunals lacked jurisdiction, contending that a College Dean is a corporate officer under its by-laws, thus placing jurisdiction with regular civil courts. On October 22, 2009, the CA agreed, reversing the NLRC and reinstating the Labor Arbiter's decision, asserting the appointment and oversight distinctions.

CA’s Amended Decision

After re-evaluating jurisdiction concerns, the CA amended its ruling on March 29, 2010, concluding Dr. Barba held a corporate office as Dean and thus barring labor tribunal jurisdiction over her complaint. This reasoning rested on the interpretation of the by-laws and the nature of the appointments.

Petitioner’s Arguments

In her subsequent appeal, Dr. Barba argued the CA erred in classifying her as a corporate officer, asserting her employment status as an employee entitled to labor tribunal protection. Additionally, she contested the retroactive jurisdiction claim and the procedural propriety regarding a second motion for reconsideration.

Procedural Matters

The Supreme Court noted the issue regarding the timeliness of the petition, determining that Dr. Barba was not barred from filing a reconsideration of the Amended Decision as it represented a substantive modification of a previous ruling, justifying a new appeal cycle.

Supreme Court’s Resolution

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reitera

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.