Title
Sibal vs. Notre Dame of Greater Manila
Case
G.R. No. 75093
Decision Date
Feb 23, 1990
School nurse illegally dismissed after objecting to unpaid summer work and teaching assignments; entitled to reinstatement, backwages, teaching compensation, and moral damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 75093)

Facts of Employment and Dispute

Sibal was first employed as a school nurse in January 1973, compensated on a 12-month basis despite only working during the school year, excluding vacation periods. Throughout her employment, she encountered directives from the school's directors that conflicted with her employment contract. Notably, in 1976, she was requested to shorten her summer vacation, which she obliged. However, subsequent requests to perform duties outside her nursing role, such as working in the library or teaching health subjects, led to disputes over her compensation and duties. Notably, Sibal taught health subjects to 900 students when two teachers left the school but was not compensated for this additional work.

Legal Proceedings and NLRC Decision

On June 14, 1982, when Sibal filed a complaint for non-payment of vacation pay and compensation for her teaching roles, she was immediately terminated without prior notice. The Labor Arbiter, in a decision dated October 8, 1982, acknowledged that her dismissal lacked just cause but still ordered separation pay instead of reinstatement. This decision was later affirmed by the NLRC on April 11, 1986. Consequently, Sibal filed a petition for certiorari seeking reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages.

Issues for Resolution

The core issues narrowed by the parties included: 1) Whether separation pay was appropriate instead of reinstatement; 2) Whether Sibal was entitled to compensation for teaching health subjects; and 3) Whether the actions of Notre Dame of Greater Manila constituted unfair labor practices that would entitle her to moral damages.

Court's Findings on Separation Pay and Reinstatement

The Court found merit in Sibal's petition, critiquing the NLRC's affirmation of the Labor Arbiter's ruling that separation pay was appropriate due to strained relations between Sibal and the former director. The Court noted that this reasoning was speculative and based on the official nature of their conflict regarding duties and compensation, rather than personal animosity. The decision emphasized the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure, asserting that an employee's right to reinstatement should not be disregarded.

Compensation for Additional Duties

The Court agreed that Sibal should be compensated for her teaching responsibilities, identifying teaching health subjects as distinct from her nursing role. The Court observed that while these tasks were allied, they required separate skill sets and were compensable as extra duties, in contrast to the standard responsibilities of a school nurse.

Findings on Unfair Labor Practice and Moral Damages

The Court supported Sibal's claims of unfair labor practices, affirming that she had been the subject of discriminat

...continue reading

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