Title
Ricafort vs. Bautista
Case
G.R. No. 200984
Decision Date
Nov 25, 2019
EARIST BoT's invalid retirement resolution for President Bautista, upheld reappointment, awarded damages for bad faith and abuse of power.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 157171)

Governing Laws and Regulations

EARIST is a state college established under Presidential Decree No. 1524, and its governing body is the BoT, as defined by Republic Act No. (RA) 8292, also known as the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997. The significance of this case revolves around the interpretation of the provisions pertaining to the term and appointment of the president.

Appointment and Retirement of Respondent

Respondent Maura V. Bautista was initially appointed as President of EARIST on December 8, 1999, with a term lasting until December 2003. Prior to the expiration of this term, the BoT reappointed her for a second term effective December 16, 2003. This reappointment was initially set until she turned 65, but it included provisions allowing for an extension beyond that age.

Action by the Board of Trustees

In 2005, upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 65, Bautista applied for retirement benefits from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), which were approved, but she did not resign from her position. Subsequently, the BoT passed an unnumbered resolution on April 19, 2006, declaring her to have mandatorily retired effective December 1, 2005, and appointed Dr. Enrique R. Hilario as Officer-in-Charge (OIC).

Legal Action and RTC Rulings

Upon learning of her designation as the OIC, Bautista filed a Petition for Injunction with an application for a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the BoT’s resolution. Initially, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed her petition but later granted a temporary restraining order, reinstating her as President until further proceedings could confirm the validity of the board’s resolution.

Final Rulings of the RTC and CA

The RTC eventually ruled in her favor on October 14, 2008, declaring that the designation of Dr. Hilario as OIC was improper since Bautista’s position had not been vacated according to the requirements laid out in RA 8292. The RTC awarded her unearned salary as damages, along with exemplary damages and attorney's fees, placing liability solely on Ricafort as an individual based on her perceived abuse of power.

Court of Appeals Decision

On February 28, 2012, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, upholding the awards granted to Bautista and finding that Ricafort and the BoT had acted in bad faith. The CA also found the award of attorney's fees just and equitable given the refusal to satisfy Bautista’s valid claims.

Supreme Court Findings and Decision

In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court identified that it h

...continue reading

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