Title
Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs. Dela Rosa-Meris
Case
G.R. No. 178837
Decision Date
Sep 1, 2014
Teacher dismissed for tampering with school records; Supreme Court upheld dismissal, citing serious misconduct and due process compliance despite her refusal to participate.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 178837)

Factual Background

The respondent was initially hired by petitioner as a probationary teacher in 1971 and was eventually promoted to Master Teacher in 1982. Her employment consisted of intermittent periods, with her last stint starting as a substitute teacher in October 1999 and progressing until her termination in October 2003. The employment relationship soured on September 10, 2003, when complaints from parents concerning respondent's handling of class records surfaced, particularly allegations of unprofessionalism and discrepancies in student grades.

Investigation and Grounds for Termination

Petitioner's investigation revealed significant discrepancies in respondent's grading records. These discrepancies between her "Dirty Records" and "Clean Records" indicated cases of grade tampering to favor certain students, notably one Louis Ariel Arellano, who was inaccurately portrayed as the top pupil. Subsequently, on September 12, 2003, petitioner issued a notice requiring respondent to explain these discrepancies, but she refused to accept the notice. The letter was later delivered by registered mail.

Procedural Engagement

After failing to present her explanation, the principal summoned respondent for a conference on October 2, 2003, where termination was discussed. Despite assurances of the validity of her performance, respondent was ultimately fired on October 3, 2003, due to her alleged tampering with student grades. Respondent later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming violation of due process.

Labor Arbiter's Decision

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming the legal validity of respondent's dismissal based on the evidence of grade tampering, concluding that serious misconduct warranted dismissal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The Arbiter found her explanations concerning grade alterations unconvincing.

NLRC Rulings and CA Decision

Respondent appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which initially acknowledged errors but later reversed its stance upon reconsideration, again affirming the legality of the dismissal. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals granted respondent's petition, declaring her dismissal illegal and awarding benefits without reinstatement.

Supreme Court's Review

Petitioner contested the CA's ruling, positing that the NLRC had acted within its jurisdiction and that procedural requirements regarding non-forum shopping had not been satisfactorily addressed by respondent. The Supreme Court reinstated the NLRC's decision, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural rules and affirming that respon

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.