Title
Triste vs. Leyte State College Board of Trustees
Case
G.R. No. 78623
Decision Date
Dec 17, 1990
Dr. Triste, permanently appointed as LSC Vice-President, was illegally removed without due process; SC ruled her reinstatement with backwages, upholding her security of tenure.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 78623)

Applicable Law

The governing laws in this case include Presidential Decree No. 944 and Presidential Decree No. 1437, which outline the governance structures and powers of chartered state colleges in the Philippines. These decrees empower the Board of Trustees to appoint vice-presidents and define their roles, including the stipulation that their terms are potentially separate from that of the college president.

Background of the Vice Presidency

Dr. Triste's appointment as Vice-President was formally confirmed by the Board via Resolution No. 53 on February 3, 1984, which also specified her compensation. The role required confirmation by the Board of Trustees, and though the position did not appear in initial college documents, it was later classified correctly under the college's plantilla as "Professor 6 (Vice-President)."

Change in Board Composition and Petitioner's Concerns

A significant administrative change occurred in February 1986 when Dr. Flores became the officer-in-charge after the retirement of the previous president. Anticipating her removal, Dr. Triste preemptively submitted a position paper asserting that the position of Vice-President was not vacant and that her appointment was independent of the college president's term.

Removal from Office

On August 19, 1986, Dr. Triste was officially notified that Dr. Chan-Gonzaga was appointed to her former position, effectively removing her as Vice-President. Following this action, Dr. Triste filed a petition for reconsideration citing violations of her rights to security of tenure. The Board’s response indicated that the Vice-President's position was considered "honorific" and co-terminous with the president's.

Appeal and Review Committee Decision

Dr. Triste's appeal to the Review Committee of the Ministry of Justice claimed procedural improprieties in her removal, alleging a lack of due process and insufficient grounds for her ouster. The Review Committee dismissed her appeal on the grounds that it was filed too late; however, Dr. Triste contended that she had not received the necessary documents to substantiate her appeal prior to the dismissal.

Judicial Relief Sought

As a result of her appeal's dismissal and her allegations of due process violations, Dr. Triste filed a petition for certiorari, claiming that administrative remedies were exhausted due to these procedural defects. She argued that her replacement lacked a legal and statutory basis and that the process used to replace her did not adhere to the requirements of Executive Order No. 17.

Court's Findings and Ruling

The court found it unnecessary to exhaust further administrative remedies given the evident legal questions raised, pa

...continue reading

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