Aklan College v. Enero

NACHURA, J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision1 dated October 27, 2006 and the Resolution2 dated June 6, 2007 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 85997. The Facts The facts of the case are as follows: Petitioner3 is an educational institution in Kalibo, Aklan, while respondents were high school teachers of petitioner. On November 15, 16 and 17, 1994 and on January 6, 10 and 11, 1995, high school students of the College held mass actions against the principal of the high school department at the public plaza opposite the school.

The demonstrations were held with validly issued permits from the Office of the Mayor. Petitioner averred that the protest rallies were in the nature of illegal strikes instigated by the respondents and not purely student demonstrations. An administrative investigation was conducted at which respondents were given an opportunity to explain their side.

Thereafter, respondents were dismissed from employment for causes provided in Articles 264 and 282 of the Labor Code,4 Section 165 of the Education Act of 1982, and paragraphs (d) and (e) of Section 946 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. Respondents filed a case for illegal dismissal against petitioner before the Labor Arbiter (LA). They alleged that what took place was a peaceful assembly wherein the students demonstrated their sympathy on what they perceived to be wrongs committed by the high school principal against some teachers.

They maintained that they did not instigate the students to rally. On January 29, 1999, the LA rendered a Decision7 absolving respondents and holding petitioner guilty of illegal dismissal. The LA ratiocinated that there was no evidence that the respondents abandoned their classes.

Since it was respondents' students who were the ones rallying, naturally they had to go out of the classrooms and observe their students. The participation of respondents in the activities was passive. The LA opined that even if it was admitted that respondents actively participated, the same should not be taken against them, for they joined a peaceful assembly and only exercised their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.8 The dispositive portion of the decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondents are hereby directed to immediately reinstate the complainants and to pay them the following: 1.

Perpetuo Enero: a) Backwages ... ₱257,840.00 b) 13th month pay ... 21,486.67 c) Service incentive leave pay ...

7,936.00 d) Moral damages ... 50,000.00 e) Exemplary damages ... 30,000.00 ₱367,262.67 2.

Arlyn Castigador: a) Backwages ... ₱235,994.00 b) 13th month pay ... 19,666.42 c) Service incentive leave pay ...

6,992.40 d) Moral damages ... 50,000.00 e) Exemplary damages ... 30,000.00 342,652.82 3.

Nuena Sermon: a) Backwages ... ₱340,875.00 b) 13th month pay ... 28,406.25 c) Service incentive leave pay ...

10,100.00 d) Moral damages ... 50,000.00 e) Exemplary damages ... 30,000.00 459,381.25 4.

Jocelyn Zolina: a) Backwages ... ₱347,459.52 b) 13th month pay ... 28,954.96 c) Service incentive leave pay ...

9,651.60 d) Moral damages ... 50,000.00 e) Exemplary damages ... 30,000.00 466,066.08 TOTAL ………… ₱1,635,362.82 Plus 10% Attorney's Fees of ………… 163,536.28 Grand Total ………… ₱1,798,899.10 This is without prejudice to further computation of the amounts if there are increases in the interregnum.

SO ORDERED.9 On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision of the LA. Based on the findings of facts of the NLRC, the respondents comprised barely two percent (2%) of the total work force of the high school department.

The mass action was not a result of a labor dispute but of personal acrimony against the high school principal. The principal was accused of giving respondents a quota in selling tickets for a dance sponsored by petitioner and of withholding and deducting from teachers' salaries the cost of the tickets. Respondents employed high-handed machinations in using the students to redress their grievances against the principal.

Their conduct was unbecoming of teachers who should be models of integrity and correct values. Their act of instigating and exploiting their students to take to the streets their personal grudge against the principal should not be tolerated.10 The fallo of the Decision11 dated March 25, 2002 reads: WHEREFORE, the impugned decision of the Labor Arbiter is SET ASIDE and VACATED and a new decision is rendered declaring the dismissal of the [respondents] valid. However, [Aklan College, Inc. and Msgr.

Adolfo P. Depra, in his capacity as the College Rector] are ordered to pay the [respondents] their 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay as follows: 1. Perpetuo Enero - a) 13th month pay - ₱21,486.67 b) SIL pay - 7,936.00 2. Arlyn Castigador - a) 13th month pay - ₱19,666.42 b) SIL pay - 6,992.40 3.

Nuena Sermon - a) 13th month pay - ₱28,406.25 b) SIL pay - 10,100.00 4. Jocelyn Zolina - a) 13th month pay - ₱28,954.96 b) SIL pay - 9,651.60 SO ORDERED.12 Presiding Commissioner Irenea E. Ceniza submitted a Separate Dissenting Opinion13 on the NLRC decision. According to her, the majority view that respondents used high-handed machinations to instigate the students to rally was not supported by substantial evidence.

Furthermore, she agreed with the finding of the LA that there was no strike, but only a rally or demonstration facilitated by the students with validly issued permits from the Office of the Mayor. Both parties filed a motion for reconsideration. On February 27, 2004, the NLRC issued a Resolution14 denying the said motions for lack of merit.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari15 before the CA, seeking to partially annul the Decision of the NLRC insofar as it held petitioner liable to pay respondents' 13th month pay and service incentive leave (SIL) pay despite the finding that respondents were validly dismissed from service. Respondents did not file an appeal from the decision of the NLRC.16 On October 27, 2006, the CA rendered the assailed Decision. It held that, for failure of the dismissed teachers to question the NLRC's denial of the motion for reconsideration, the Decision dated March 25, 2002 and the Resolution dated February 27, 2007 became final and executory as to them, thus, limiting the issue to be resolved to that presented by petitioner, i.e., the propriety of the award of 13th month pay and SIL pay to the dismissed teachers.

The CA held that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in awarding respondents 13th month pay and SIL pay. However, it modified the award to conform to the dismissed teachers' employment history. The pertinent portions of the CA decision read: 1.

Perpetuo Enero (June 1, 1990 to May 5, 1995) Thirteenth Month Pay June 1, 1990 to December 1990 (7/12 x ₱5,952.02) ₱ 3,472.01 January 1991 to December 1994 (4 x ₱5,952.02) 23,808.08 January 1, 1995 to May 5, 1995 (5/12 x ₱5,952.02) 2,480.01 Service Incentive Leave Pay Proportionate SIL for June to December 1990 7/12 x 10 days = 5.83 days SIL earned from 1991 to 1994 = 40.00 days Proportionate SIL for January to May 1995 5/12 x 10 days = 4.17 days