G.R. No. 252124 - Mabao vs. Bohol Wisdom School

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252124)

Factual Background

Respondent began teaching at BWS on June 7, 2007, attained regular status in 2010, and received a monthly salary of PHP 20,860.00. In September 2016 respondent informed BWS administrators that she was two months pregnant by her boyfriend, Ian Usaraga. On September 22, 2016, respondent was told orally by the Head of the Administrative Team that she would not report to her classes starting the next day. On September 27, 2016, respondent received a Disciplinary Form and a Letter stating that she was “indefinitely suspended without pay” and specifying suspension “until legally married.” The Letter framed the findings in moral terms and referenced Republic Act No. 9710 in explaining the school’s view on the matter. Respondent filed a Complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal on October 5, 2016.

Employer’s Account of Events

BWS et al. maintained that respondent confessed to an out-of-wedlock pregnancy and represented that she was in the process of securing a marriage license. The school asserted that the suspension was agreed to prevent students from noticing respondent’s condition and that the suspension was intended to last until respondent’s marriage, which occurred on October 5, 2016. BWS sent three return-to-work notices dated October 7, November 3, and November 22, 2016, which the school says respondent refused to accept or otherwise ignored. BWS alleged that respondent thereby abandoned her employment.

Labor Arbiter Proceedings and Ruling

The Labor Arbiter heard the complaint and, by Decision dated January 31, 2017, found that respondent was constructively dismissed. The Arbiter awarded respondent backwages, separation pay, thirteenth month pay, service incentive leave pay, rice allowance, Christmas cash gift, and attorney’s fees aggregating PHP 320,678.19, and dismissed other claims for lack of merit.

NLRC Ruling

The National Labor Relations Commission granted the employer’s appeal and, by Decision dated May 31, 2017, reversed the Labor Arbiter. The NLRC found no evidence of constructive dismissal, concluded that the suspension was not tantamount to dismissal, and deleted the monetary award. The NLRC noted that respondent and her boyfriend married shortly after her disclosure and that the school intended to accept her back to work. The NLRC denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 17, 2017.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On certiorari the Court of Appeals partly granted respondent’s petition. The CA agreed that respondent was not constructively dismissed but held that the suspension was illegal because the school grounded discipline on moral judgments inconsistent with public and secular standards and because the school failed to afford proper procedural due process, including an initial written notice to explain. The CA ordered backwages from September 22, 2016 to October 7, 2016, and the accrual of thirteenth month pay and other benefits until November 25, 2016. The CA declined to award moral and exemplary damages but granted attorney’s fees of ten percent of the monetary award. The CA denied the parties’ motions for reconsideration.

Parties’ Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioners argued that the suspension was a lawful exercise of management prerogative consistent with the school’s religious moral standard, that procedural due process was substantially complied with because respondent admitted the violation in meetings, and that the suspension was mutually agreed. Petitioners further contended that respondent abandoned her employment and was therefore not entitled to the CA’s monetary awards. Respondent maintained that she was illegally suspended and constructively dismissed and that she was entitled to reinstatement or separation pay and other employment benefits.

Issues Presented

The determinative legal questions were whether respondent’s suspension was illegal; whether the suspension amounted to constructive dismissal; whether respondent abandoned her employment and, if so, when the employment relationship terminated; and what monetary and nonmonetary relief respondent was entitled to, if any.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari. The Court affirmed the CA’s finding that respondent’s suspension was illegal and that she was not constructively dismissed. The Court modified the CA’s award by changing the terminal date for accrual of benefits from November 25, 2016 to November 9, 2016, holding that respondent abandoned her employment on November 9, 2016. The Court ordered BWS et al. to pay backwages from September 22, 2016 to October 7, 2016; thirteenth month pay and other enumerated benefits accruing until November 9, 2016; attorney’s fees of ten percent of the total monetary award; issuance of a Certificate of Employment; and legal interest of six percent per annum from finality until full satisfaction. The Court remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter for computation.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Morality and Due Process

The Court emphasized that the legal standard of immorality is public and secular, not religious. The Court relied on prior decisions, including Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc., Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, and Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc., to reiterate that consensual sexual intercourse between two adults who have no legal impediment to marry is not disgraceful or immoral in the contemplation of the law. The Court concluded that BWS’s imposition of discipline on the ground of premarital sexual relations reflected sectarian morality and therefore did not satisfy the public and secular standard required to justify dismissal or suspension. The Court further held that procedural due process was violated because the Administrative Team had predecided the suspension before affording respondent an opportunity to be heard and because the school failed to issue the requisite initial written notice stating specific grounds and inviting a written explanation. The combination of substantive and procedural deficiencies rendered the suspension illegal.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Abandonment and Accrual Period

Applying the elements of abando

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 252124)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Bohol Wisdom School, Dr. Simplicio Yap, Jr., and Raul H. Deloso filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Rules of Court contesting the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution.
Miraflor Mabao filed a Complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission alleging illegal suspension and illegal dismissal with attendant monetary and ancillary claims.
The Labor Arbiter rendered a Decision declaring Mabao constructively dismissed and awarded monetary relief, which Bohol Wisdom School et al. appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter and deleted the monetary awards, prompting Mabao to petition the Court of Appeals via certiorari.
The Court of Appeals partly granted the petition, holding Mabao illegally suspended and awarding backwages and benefits, which prompted the present Rule 45 appeal to the Supreme Court.

Key Factual Allegations

Mabao began teaching at Bohol Wisdom School on June 7, 2007, became regular in 2010, and received a monthly salary of PHP 20,860.00.
Mabao informed school authorities in September 2016 that she was two months pregnant from her boyfriend, Ian Usaraga, and that she was securing a marriage license.
On September 22, 2016, Mabao was verbally told not to report to classes until she could present documents showing she was married to her boyfriend.
On September 27, 2016, Mabao received a Disciplinary Form and a Letter stating an "indefinite suspension until legally married" and containing findings that premarital relations amounted to immoral conduct.
Mabao filed a complaint with the NLRC on October 5, 2016, and married the father of her child on October 5, 2016.

Procedural History

The Labor Arbiter issued a Judgment dated January 31, 2017 declaring Mabao constructively dismissed and awarding PHP 320,678.19 in aggregate relief.
The NLRC rendered a Decision dated May 31, 2017 reversing the Labor Arbiter and deleting the award for lack of evidence of dismissal.
The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated September 28, 2018 modifying the NLRC Decision by declaring Mabao illegally suspended and awarding backwages, benefits, and attorney's fees.
The Court of Appeals denied the parties' motions for reconsideration in a Resolution dated January 24, 2020, leading to the present petition.

Issues Presented

Whether Mabao was constructively dismissed by Bohol Wisdom School et al..
Whether Mabao was illegally suspended on the ground of premarital sexual relations resulting in pregnancy out of wedlock.
Whether procedural due process attended the disciplinary action.
Whether Mabao abandoned her employment and, if so, the precise date of termination for award computation.
What monetary and ancillary relief, if any, are proper.

Contentions of the Parties

Bohol Wisdom School et al. contended that the suspension was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative rooted in the school's religiously informed morality and that procedural due process was substantially complied with.
Bohol Wisdom School et al. further contended that Mabao mutually agreed to the suspension and later abandoned her employment by refusing to return despite return-to-work notices.
Mabao contended that the suspension was illegal and that she was constructively dismissed, and she sought backwages, benefits, separation pay, damages, attorney's fees, and a Certificate of Employment.

Ruling and Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals Decision with modification.
The Supreme Court declared Mabao illegally suspended and ordered Bohol Wisdom School, Dr. Simplicio Yap, Jr., and Raul H. Deloso to jointly and solidarily pay backwages from September 22, 2016 to October 7, 2016.
The Supreme Court ordered payment of 13th month pay and enumerated benefits accruing until November 9, 2016, and directed payment of attorney's fees equivalent to ten percent of the total monetary award.
The Supreme Court ordered issuance of a Certificate of Employment to Mabao and directed that all mone