G.R. No. 146779 - Gatbonton vs. National Labor Relations Commission

Case Summary (G.R. No. 146779)

Key Dates

November 1998: Student complaint filed.
January 11, 1999: Preventive suspension imposed (30 days).
February 23, 1999: Mapua Rules and Regulations implementing R.A. No. 7877 published.
May 21, 1999: Regional Trial Court petition for certiorari terminated by compromise agreement.
June 18, 1999: Labor Arbiter decision declared the 30-day preventive suspension illegal and ordered payment of wages for the suspension period.
September 30, 1999: NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and set aside its decision.
November 10, 2000: Court of Appeals denied relief and affirmed the NLRC decision.
January 16, 2001: CA denied motion for reconsideration.
January 23, 2006: Supreme Court decision (applying the 1987 Constitution).

Applicable Law and Authorities

Constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is 1990 or later).
Statute: Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) and the duty it imposes on educational institutions to promulgate implementing rules and regulations in consultation with employees or students.
Administrative rules: Mapua Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of R.A. No. 7877 (contained a provision on preventive suspension and a clause making the rules effective fifteen days after publication).
Labor law: Section 8, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (preventive suspension permissible where continued employment poses a serious threat to life or property).
Precedents cited: TaAada v. Tuvera (publication requirement for effectivity), Philippine International Trading Corp. v. Angeles, Pilipinas Kao, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, and Cocoland Development Corp. v. NLRC (standards for awarding moral/exemplary damages).

Procedural History

Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal suspension, damages, and attorney’s fees with the NLRC (NLRC-NCR Case No. 01-00388-99). A parallel certiorari petition before the Regional Trial Court of Manila was terminated by a compromise agreement on May 21, 1999 in which MIT agreed to publish rules implementing R.A. No. 7877 and to reconduct its administrative investigation; petitioner recognized the authority of MIT to investigate. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner on June 18, 1999, declaring the preventive suspension illegal and ordering payment of wages for the suspension period. The NLRC reversed on appeal, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC. Petitioner then sought review before the Supreme Court.

Issue Presented

(1) Whether MIT’s preventive suspension of petitioner on January 11, 1999 was legally justified; (2) whether petitioner is entitled to payment of wages for the 30-day preventive suspension; and (3) whether petitioner is entitled to moral or other damages for the alleged illegal preventive suspension.

Facts Pertinent to the Preventive Suspension

The Committee on Decorum and Investigation resolved to place petitioner under preventive suspension, stating that his continued stay during investigation affected his performance as faculty and laboratory head due to psychological effects (depression and/or emotional stress), affected students’ learning and the MIT community, and that suspension would allow him to prepare for the investigation and prevent his influence on other community members. The Mapua Rules’ Rule II, Section 1 provided for immediate preventive suspension in sexual harassment cases where evidence of guilt is strong and the school head is morally convinced that the accused’s continued stay distracts normal operations or poses risk to life or property.

Legal Standard on Effectivity of Institutional Rules and Preventive Suspension

The Court reiterated that rules promulgated to enforce or implement laws (such as those implementing R.A. No. 7877) must be published as a condition of their effectivity; publication must be full and timely (citing TaAada). The Mapua Rules themselves stipulated they would take effect fifteen days after publication. Under the Labor Code and its implementing rules, preventive suspension may only be validly imposed if the continued employment of the worker poses a serious threat to life or property; institutional rules may additionally require strong evidence of guilt and a moral conviction by the school head that continued presence disrupts operations or poses risk.

Analysis — Effectivity of the Mapua Rules at the Time of Suspension

The Court found that the Mapua Rules implementing R.A. No. 7877 were published on February 23, 1999 and thus, in accordance with their own Section 3, Rule IV provision, could not take effect prior to fifteen days thereafter. Consequently, on January 11, 1999—when the preventive suspension was imposed—the Mapua Rules were not yet legally effective and could not serve as a legal basis for suspension.

Analysis — Merit of Preventive Suspension Even if Rules Were Effective

Even assuming arguendo the Mapua Rules applied, the Committee’s resolution did not establish the required circumstances under those rules: it did not show that evidence of guilt was strong nor that the school head was morally convinced the accused’s continued stay constituted a distraction to normal operations; nor did it show that petitioner posed a risk or danger to the life or property of members of the educational community. Under the Labor Code standard, there was likewise no showing that petitioner’s continued employment posed a serious threat to life or property. The record therefore lacked sufficient factual basis to justify preventive suspension under either the institutional rule or the Labor Code.

Remedies — Back Wages and Reinstatement of Labor Arbiter Decision

Because the preventive suspension had no legal basis, the Court held petitioner was entitled

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 146779)

Procedural Posture

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to set aside: (a) Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated November 10, 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 57470 affirming the NLRC decision; and (b) CA Resolution dated January 16, 2001 denying motion for reconsideration.
Case docketed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) as NLRC-NCR Case No. 01-00388-99, originally a complaint for illegal suspension, damages and attorney's fees filed by petitioner Renato S. Gatbonton.
Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on June 18, 1999 declaring the 30-day preventive suspension illegal and directing respondents to pay wages during the preventive suspension; the Labor Arbiter dismissed the rest of petitioner’s claims.
NLRC, in a Decision dated September 30, 1999, granted respondents’ appeal and set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision; NLRC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on December 13, 1999.
Petitioner filed special civil action for certiorari with the CA; CA denied the petition in its Decision dated November 10, 2000 and denied motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated January 16, 2001.
Supreme Court rendered decision on January 23, 2006 partly granting the petition: set aside the CA and NLRC decisions and their resolutions and reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s June 18, 1999 Decision.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Renato S. Gatbonton — associate professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT).
Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT); Jose Calderon (named respondent in the caption).
Collegial participation in the Supreme Court decision: Opinion penned by Justice Austria‑Martinez; concurrence by Justices Ynares‑Santiago, Callejo, Sr., and Chico‑Nazario; Chief Justice Panganiban took no part due to prior professional relationship.

Facts — Background and Events Leading to Suspension

Sometime in November 1998, a civil engineering student of MIT filed a letter-complaint against petitioner alleging unfair/unjust grading system, sexual harassment, and conduct unbecoming of an academician.
Pending investigation of the complaint, MIT’s Committee on Decorum and Investigation placed petitioner under a 30-day preventive suspension effective January 11, 1999.
The Committee’s stated rationale for preventive suspension, in Committee Resolution No. 1, was that the Committee believed:
- Petitioner’s continued stay during the investigation affects his performance as a faculty member and laboratory head considering psychological effects (depression and/or emotional stress) during investigation;
- Petitioner’s continued stay affects students’ learning and other members of the MIT community;
- The preventive suspension would allow petitioner to prepare himself for investigation and prevent his influence on other members of the community.
Prior to the preventive suspension, petitioner sought relief via certiorari before the Regional Trial Court of Manila; that case was terminated on May 21, 1999 by a compromise agreement in which MIT agreed to publish the rules implementing R.A. No. 7877, disregard prior administrative proceedings and conduct a new investigation; petitioner agreed to recognize the validity of the published rules and MIT’s authority to investigate, hear and decide the administrative case.
MIT published its Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of the Anti‑Sexual Harassment Act only on February 23, 1999; the Rules provided that they take effect fifteen (15) days after publication.

Claims and Relief Sought by Petitioner

Petition for illegal suspension, damages and attorney’s fees before the NLRC (NLRC-NCR Case No. 01-00388-99).
Before the Supreme Court, petitioner asserted: (a) NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decisions and resolutions; (b) CA erred in affirming NLRC’s dismissal of petitioner’s claim for damages.
Petitioner argued that preventive suspension lacked any legal basis because the MIT rules relied upon were not yet promulgated/effective at the time of suspension (suspension effective January 11, 1999; rules published February 23, 1999).

Labor Arbiter, NLRC and CA Dispositions

Labor Arbiter Decision (June 18, 1999): Declared the thirty-day preventive suspension illegal and directed payment of wages during the preventive suspension; dismissed the rest of petitioner’s claims.
NLRC Decision (September 30, 1999): Granted respondents’ appeal and set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision; denied reconsideration (December 13, 1999).
Court of Appeals Decision (November 10, 2000): Denied petitioner’s petition for certiorari and affirmed NLRC decision; CA denied reconsideration (January 16, 2001).

Legislative and Regulatory Framework Cited

Republic Act No. 7877 — Anti‑Sexual Harassment Act of 1995: Section 4(a) imposes duty on educational or training institutions to promulgate rules and regulations, in consultation and jointly approved by employees or students (through representatives), prescribing procedures for investigation of sexual harassment cases and the administrative sanctions therefor.
MIT Rules and Regulations for the Implementation of R.A. No. 7877:
- Rule II, Section 1 (Preventive Suspension of Accused in Sexual Harassment Cases) provides grounds for preventive suspension: (a) evidence of guilt is strong and school head is morally convinced that continued stay constitutes distraction to normal operations; or (b) accused poses a risk or danger to life or property of educational community.
- Section 3, Rule IV (Administrative Provisions) explicitly provides that the Rules shall t