Case Summary (G.R. No. 96126)
Petitioner’s Employment and Leave
Petitioner was engaged to teach for the 1981–82 school year. On January 13, 1982 she applied for an indefinite leave of absence to accompany her employed daughter to Austria; her leave application was recommended by the principal and approved by the President of the Board of Directors (documentary exhibits B and B-1).
Alleged Termination and Board Repudiation
On June 1, 1982 Emerito Labajo sent petitioner, through her husband, a letter stating that Fr. Wiertz, with concurrence of the PTA president and faculty, had terminated her services, citing (1) absence of any written employment contract due to her refusal to sign one, and (2) difficulty in obtaining a temporary substitute without a written contract (exhibits C and 1). Upon petitioner’s return in late June 1982, the Board of Directors (except Fr. Wiertz) on July 7, 1982 signed a letter declaring any prior termination null and void and directing petitioner to report and resume duties effective July 5, 1982 (exhibits D and 2). On July 9, 1982 four officers and three members of the nine-member Board resigned, stating that faculty reaction to the Board’s reinstatement decision had called the Board’s integrity into question (exhibit E).
Procedural History
Petitioner filed a complaint for damages on September 3, 1982 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu, Branch XI, alleging discrimination and unjust and illegal dismissal. The RTC rendered judgment on August 30, 1985 in petitioner’s favor, awarding P200,000 moral damages, P50,000 exemplary damages, P32,400 lost earnings for nine years, and P10,000 litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 10692). On August 30, 1990 the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissed the complaint, and absolved defendants from liability. The CA denied reconsideration on October 26, 1990. Petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
The dispositive issue was whether the private respondents are civilly liable for damages allegedly arising from petitioner’s alleged unlawful dismissal and related acts, or whether petitioner’s non‑resumption of duties constituted a voluntary discontinuance that precludes recovery.
Applicable Law
Primary statutory and doctrinal sources invoked by the courts: the 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable by virtue of the decision date), and the Civil Code provisions relied upon by the courts — Articles 19, 20, and 21 (general principles on acting in good faith, liability for willful or negligent acts contrary to law, and compensation for acts contrary to morals, good customs or public policy), as well as Article 2219 and Article 2234 as discussed by the appellate courts in relation to recovery of moral, temperate, or exemplary damages. The maxim volenti non fit injuria was also applied as a principle relevant to self‑inflicted loss.
Trial Court Findings and Relief
The RTC found in favor of petitioner, concluding that the defendants had unlawfully dismissed her and awarded substantial moral and exemplary damages, lost earnings, and litigation costs. The RTC thus treated petitioner’s allegations of illegal dismissal and discrimination as established.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling and Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the private respondents had no authority to dismiss petitioner because only the Board of Directors possessed the power to hire and fire. The termination letter sent through petitioner’s husband by certain respondents had no legal effect. The Board later repudiated that termination and ordered petitioner to return to work; accordingly, there was no evidence the respondents physically or legally prevented petitioner from resuming her post. The CA characterized petitioner’s failure to report as voluntary desistance, precluding recovery. The CA further held that acts of dissent or protest by faculty or certain officials (including threats to resign) did not constitute unlawful conduct sufficient to sustain liability for damages, being within the scope of free speech or dissent and not contrary to law, morals, good customs, or public policy.
Supreme Court Decision and Reasoning
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Court of Appeals. It agreed that the Board of Directors alone had authority to terminate employment and that the persons who sent the termination letter lacked authority; therefore the letter had no legal effect. The Board’s subsequent directive to petitioner to report for work meant the Board’s decision to retain her prevailed. The Court concluded petitioner’s non‑resumption of duties after the Board’s reinstatement was voluntary; any loss of earnings was thus self‑inflicted (volenti non fit injuria). The Court applied Articles 19–21 of the Civil Code to hold that liability for damages requires an unlawful, willful or negligent act contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy — elements not established in this record. The Court also reasoned that moral damages are equitable and ordinarily require that the injured party be without fault; because petitioner had gone on an indefinite leave, refused to sign a written contract, and failed to obey the Board’s order to resume duties, she was not free from fault and therefore not entitled to moral or exemplary damages under the cited Civil Code provisions (including the Court’s references to Article 2219 and Article 2234 jurisprudence).
Legal Analysis on Liability and Causation
The Court’s
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 96126)
Case Citation and Court
- Reported as 287 Phil. 484, First Division, G.R. No. 96126, decided August 10, 1992.
- Decision authored by Justice Grino-Aquino.
- Concurrence noted by Justices Cruz (Chairman), Medialdea, and Bellosillo, JJ.
Parties and Roles
- Petitioner: Esteria F. Garciano — a teacher employed by the Immaculate Concepcion Institute (ICI), Island of Camotes.
- Private respondents: Fr. Joseph Wiertz (founder of the school), Emerito O. Labajo (school principal), and several members of the faculty and Board-related persons named in the caption (Emerito Labajo, Lunisita Maroda, Laliana Diones, Canonisa Paninsoro, Dionisio Rosal, Remedios Galuso, Flordeluna Petalcorin, Melchizedech Loon, Norberta Maroda, and Joseph Wiertz).
- Institutional actor: The Board of Directors of Immaculate Concepcion Institute — described in the decision as the body that "alone possesses the authority to hire and fire teachers and other employees of the school."
Relevant Facts: Employment, Leave, and Correspondence
- Petitioner was hired to teach during the 1981-82 school year at ICI on the Island of Camotes.
- On January 13, 1982 (before the school year ended), petitioner applied for an indefinite leave of absence because her daughter was taking her to Austria where the daughter was employed (Exhibit B).
- The leave application was recommended for approval by Principal Emerito O. Labajo and approved by the President of the Board of Directors (Exhibit B-1).
- On June 1, 1982, Emerito Labajo addressed a letter to petitioner through her husband, Sotero Garciano (petitioner was still abroad), informing her of a decision by Fr. Joseph Wiertz, concurred in by the president of the Parent-Teachers Association and the school faculty, to terminate her services. Stated reasons for termination were:
- (1) absence of any written contract of employment between petitioner and the school due to her refusal to sign one; and
- (2) the difficulty of obtaining a substitute on a temporary basis as no one would accept the position without a written contract (Exhibits C and 1).
- Upon return from Austria in the later part of June 1982, petitioner received the termination letter.
- Petitioner made inquiries; on July 7, 1982, members of the Board of Directors, except Fr. Joseph Wiertz, signed a letter notifying petitioner she was "reinstated to report and do your usual duties as Classroom Teacher . . . effective July 5, 1982," and declaring "any letter or notice of termination received by you before this date has no sanction or authority by the Board of Directors of this Institution, therefore it is declared null and void" (Exhibits D and 2).
- On July 9, 1982, the president, vice president, secretary, and three members of the Board of Directors (out of a membership of nine) resigned "for the reason that the ICI Faculty, has reacted acidly to the Board's deliberations for the reinstatement of Mrs. Esteria F. Garciano, thereby questioning the integrity of the Board's decision" (Exhibit E).
Procedural Timeline and Pleadings
- September 3, 1982: Petitioner filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cebu, Branch XI, against Fr. Wiertz, Emerito Labajo, and certain faculty members for discrimination and unjust and illegal dismissal.
- After trial, the RTC rendered decision on August 30, 1985, ordering defendants jointly and severally to pay:
- P200,000 as moral damages;
- P50,000 as exemplary damages;
- P32,400 as lost earnings for nine years; and
- P10,000 as litigation expenses and attorney's fees.
- Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 10692).
- August 30, 1990: Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, dismissing the complaint and absolving defendants from liability; costs against plaintiff-appellee (quoted wording: "WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, the complaint is dismissed, and defendants-appellants are absolved from any liability to plaintiff?appellee. With costs against plaintiff-appellee." — p. 13, Rollo).
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals; denied October 26, 1990.
- Petitioner filed a petition for review to the Supreme Court, assigning as lone error: "Respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in absolving the private respondents from liability by faulting the petitioner for her failure to report back to her work." (p. 6, Rollo).
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in absolving the private respondents from liability by attributing the petitioner's discontinuance of teaching to her failure to report back to work and by concluding that the respondents had no authority to dismiss her and had not effectively prevented her from resuming her duties.