TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES TEACHERS and EMPLOYEES
ORGANIZATION (TIPTEO) and its member MAGDALENA T. SALON,
Petitioners, - versus - THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 158703
Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, *YNARES-SANTIAGO, **CHICO-NAZARIO, ***LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: June 26, 2009 |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
Before
this Court is the petition for review on certiorari[1] challenging
the Amended Decision dated
THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The facts of the case, set out in the
original CA decision promulgated on
Petitioner Magdalena T. Salon (Salon)
was a College Instructor 3 of the Humanities and Social Science Department (HSSD)
of respondent Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP) and a
member of the Technological Institute of the Philippines Teachers and Employees
Organization (TIPTEO). She
commenced employment with the TIP on
On P1.50 per page for the test paper used in the subject she
was teaching at the time. She reportedly
asked her students not to write on the test papers; these test papers were not
returned to the students after the test.
An allegation was made, too, that Salon committed an anomaly in the grading
of her students.
Acting on the written complaints, the
TIP – through Ms. Josephine Royer (Ms. Royer), the school's Assistant
Faculty Coordinator – sent Salon a memorandum dated
Salon answered the charges on P0.50 for each page
of the test papers, which sum she spent in photocopying the papers; the amount
collected was within the limits the school had set. She admitted that she asked her students not
to write on the test papers because there was no space on these papers where
they could write their answers; it would be preferable to use the test booklets
also provided to the students.
On the alleged grade manipulation, Salon
explained that the incident involved the son of a fellow faculty member who
actually failed her subject. Her fellow faculty member and mother of the
student, upon learning of her son's failing grade, tried to persuade Salon to
give her son a passing grade for fear that the father, if he learned of the
failing mark, would harm his son. Salon claimed that she did not accede to the
request; she gave the student a grade of 6.0 or “dropped” instead of giving him a grade of 5.0 or “failed.”
The TIP created a three-man committee
to conduct a formal investigation of the charges.[6] The committee called a hearing on
Recommendation:
1.
Evidences
(sic) show that Ms. M.T. Salon has changed the grade of Mr. Joseph Florante
Manalo. She disregarded the TIP grading system when she gave a grade of 6.0
(officially dropped) inspite of the class performance records. She admitted that the grade is 5.0 (failed)
but made it 6.0 (officially dropped) which according to her is 'lesser degree
of failure' because Mr. Joseph Florante Manalo, is the son of a co-faculty,
Mrs. Elma Manalo in HSSD. She also changed the entry in the class record. The class record was already submitted to TIP
so that this is already a TIP document.
2.
With
regards to the printed test questionnaires, Mrs. M.T. Salon has violated
Memorandum No. P-66 SY 1992-1993 by not getting the approval of the department
officer. It is unauthorized selling
which the General Disciplinary Sanctions (Memorandum No. P-2 s. 1999-2000)
classifies as a GRAVE offense.
3.
The
committee recommends the application of the corresponding sanction as contained
in the General Disciplinary Sanctions (Memo No. P-3 s. 1999-2000) which is
dismissal.
4.
The
recommendation shall take effect only after the approval of the President.
On
Salon sought assistance from TIPTEO which
then requested the TIP that a joint grievance investigation be conducted to
take up her dismissal. The TIP denied the request arguing that Salon's
dismissal was not proper for the grievance machinery because the ground for
dismissal was a violation of the school's rules and regulations.
Faced with this denial, TIPTEO opted
to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB) in the National Capital Region. At the NCMB, the parties agreed to submit the
dispute to Voluntary Arbitrator Alfonso C. Atienza for voluntary arbitration.
On
The voluntary arbitrator ordered the TIP
to reinstate Salon as College Instructor 3 with full backwages, but suspended her
for one month “for not getting a written permission from responsible
officials of the school in charging students with the cost of examination
papers.”
The TIP sought the reconsideration of
the award, but the voluntary arbitrator denied the motion on
1. In line with the school's thrust to provide
quality education and service to its students, a photocopy center is created
with the major task of servicing students on their handout requirements.
x
x x
4. Please
discuss these to your respective faculty members on one of your department
meetings.
x
x x
4.1 Explain to
them the objectives for the creation of said photocopy center. Emphasize to them that they are not
authorized to sell instructional materials, and to do so is a grave
offense. Explain further that this is
one of the reasons why the center is being formed.
x
x x
4.2 Make clear
to them that services of the photocopy center shall be limited to required
handouts and instructional materials assigned by faculty members and will not
include other photocopy needs of the student.
The CA ruled
that examination papers do not fall within the term “instructional materials” that the
memorandum covers; the memorandum only covers handouts and instructional
materials needed by students and assigned by their teachers. The CA explained that from their nature and
use, handouts and instructional materials are entirely different from
examination papers; instructional materials are used to present and convey
lessons to the students; whereas, examination papers measure the students’ degree of comprehension of
their lessons.
On a related matter, the CA held that
if Salon committed an infraction, it should be limited to the fact that she did
not ask the Faculty Coordinator and the Department Head to determine the cost
of the papers which she disseminated among her students, as required under
paragraph 4 of Memorandum No. P-22 s. 1988-1989.[12] Additionally, the CA held that Salon could be
cited for tampering with the grade of her student Joseph Florante Manalo (Manalo) – a violation of the TIP grading
policy.
Undeterred, the TIP moved for the
reconsideration of the CA decision. The
CA granted the motion and handed down the now assailed amended decision on
For the reason that the infractions
committed by Salon “were unrefuted and proven,” the CA found basis for
the TIP's decision to dismiss her for the commission of a grave offense. This notwithstanding, the appellate court
deemed it “in accord with justice and equity to award her separation pay,”
in consideration of Salon's more than ten (10) years of service to TIP and because
she had not previously been involved in any similar act or one that warrants a
heavier penalty.
Accordingly, the CA annulled its
decision dated
THE PETITION
The petition submits that the CA
erred:
1.
In ruling that Salon
was dismissed for a valid cause.
2.
In not finding that
Salon was denied procedural due process.
3.
In not dismissing the
petition outright despite its failure to attach a certified statement of
material dates in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 in relation to Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court, and Revised Circular No. 1-88.
On the first ground, Salon and her
union bewail the CA's shifting appreciation of the nature of test/examination
papers, from “non-instructional” material to “instructional”
material relying on the same policy document of the school, Memorandum No. P-25
s. 2000-2001.[16] They contend that the appellate court's
change of mind was not supported by any authority. Citing the dictionary definition[17]
of “instructional” and “test,” they argue that “instructional
material” and “test papers” are two different things; “test”
is “a series of questions, problems, etc., intended to measure the extent
of knowledge, aptitudes, intelligence, and other mental traits”; “instructional”
is an adjective which means “pertaining or relating to instruction;
educational; containing information.”
Further, petitioners posit that it is
incorrect to conclude that Salon is guilty of selling photocopied test
questionnaires to her students; she was not selling but merely securing
reimbursement for the personal expenses she incurred in the preparation of the
test papers. Salon cited as authority
Memorandum No. P-22 s. 1988-1989,[18]
which expressly set guidelines for the cost of stenciled examination papers, P0.40
for newsprint, and P0.60 for whitewove paper.
Charging the students for the
examination papers could have been avoided according to Salon had TIP performed
its obligation of providing test and examination papers to the students;
faculty members, who are not allowed to use school computers and typewriters in
the preparation of the materials, had to type and photocopy the examination
papers at their own expense and for which they had to seek reimbursement.
On the violation of the school's grading
system, Salon submits that she did it for a noble intention; she changed the
grade of Manalo – the son of a fellow faculty member – from a failing mark
of 5.0 to a grade of 6.0 (dropped) to lessen the impact of the student’s mother’s guilt
and to keep the student from being punished by his father, as she explained in
her letter dated November 14, 2000 to TIP President Dr. Teresita Quirino.[19]
Salon claims that when she realized
that she violated the TIP's grading system, she consciously tried to rectify
her error; on October 20, 2000, during the submission and re-checking of her
grading sheets, she asked the permission of Ms. Royer to use the Arlegui
computer room to correct the grade of Manalo, but Ms. Royer directed her to
defer the correction until the date set by the Registrar's Office for the final
audit of grades; the scheduled date, however, was overtaken by her dismissal
from her teaching post. She submits that
there was no malice in what she did or an intent to violate the school's
grading system; at the very least, she committed an error in judgment that does
not warrant the harsh penalty of dismissal; her dismissal would violate the
constitutional guaranty of security of tenure.
On
the due process issue, Salon
points out that the investigation of the charges against her was a “hoax”; no
genuine investigation took place as she stated in her affidavit dated June 27,
2001;[20] the investigation was merely a gripe session
where the complaining students hurled a barrage of malicious allegations
against her; she was not afforded an
opportunity to defend herself and to be represented by counsel of her own
choice or a representative from the union.
Salon further submits that the TIP failed to comply with the two-notice
requirement before she was terminated from employment – (1) a first notice
apprising her of the particular acts or omission for which she was being
dismissed, and (2) a second notice
informing her of the school's decision to dismiss her. She contends that the first notice issued by the
TIP merely directed her to submit her explanation regarding the “selling of
photocopied examination,” and did not inform her that this was a ground for
dismissal.
In her third assignment of error,
Salon faults the CA for not dismissing the TIP's petition outright for its failure
to attach a certified statement of material dates in violation of Section 3,
Rule 46 in relation with Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and Revised Circular No.
1-88. She submits that a perusal of the
TIP's petition for review, dated
Petitioners pray
that the CA's amended petition be set aside; that Salon's dismissal be declared
illegal; and that she be reinstated with full backwages.
THE CASE FOR TIP
The TIP’s Comment dated September 5,
2003[22]
and Memorandum dated March 25, 2002[23]
commonly justify Salon's dismissal on grounds of: (1) tampering or falsifying the grade of a
student, which is a serious misconduct and an act of dishonesty and, (2)
selling of test papers without the approval of the school, which is a grave
offense under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and TIP's general
disciplinary sanctions.[24]
On the first infraction, the TIP
laments that the Voluntary Arbitrator ignored Salon's involvement in the
incident on the excuse that the complaint was not notarized. The TIP brushes aside the technical
deficiency and focuses on the substance of the offense charged – that Salon
admitted that she changed the grade of her student Manalo from a failing grade
of 5.0 to a mark of 6.0, which means that the student did not fail, but “officially
dropped” the subject; the act constituted tampering, a violation not only
of the school's explicit rules and regulations, but also of the Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools; the
alteration of the grade of her student constituted serious misconduct in
relation with the performance of Salon's duties that rendered her unfit to
continue working for the school; it was also an act of dishonesty, a clear
disregard of her duty to serve as an example to her students and to others. While
Salon claimed that she did it with the noble intention of giving the student a
lesser degree of failure, it was a clear falsification of student records,
which is a valid ground for termination of employment under the Manual.
Regarding the charge of selling test
questionnaires without approval, TIP again relies on the results of the
investigation undertaken by a committee created for the purpose. The committee found Salon to have violated
Memorandum No. P-66 s. 1992-1993,[25]
which provides among others:
1.0
All faculty members are reminded that
x
x x
1.3 Faculty members who intend to use
mimeographed or photocopied test questionnaires should first refer these to
their respective department officers. If
approved, they should not sell these more than the cost of the prevailing price
of photocopies which are between 0.25 to .035 centavos per page.
x
x x
2.0 Any faculty member violating the school's
policies will be subject to disciplinary action, either suspension or dismissal
depending on the gravity of the offense.
TIP contends that Salon did not ask
for the approval of the school on her selling and costing of the test
questionnaires, an offense classified as grave under the general disciplinary
sanctions of the school, or Memorandum No.
P-3 s. 1999-2000, the penalty for which is dismissal. It further contends that in an attempt to
justify her acts, Salon cited Memorandum No. P-22, s. 1988-1989 regulating the
selling of mimeographed examinations, which it argues cannot prevail over a
subsequent issuance, Memorandum No. P-66 s. 1992-1993 and Memorandum No. P-25
s. 2000-2001, which set guidelines for the use of the photocopy center, not
acts of teachers. It explains that under
the two memoranda, the selling of test papers without authorization from school
authorities is a prohibited act.
Also, the school takes exception to
Salon's reliance on Memorandum No. P-25 s. 2000-2001[26]
on the use of the photocopy center, especially on her claim that the test
questionnaire is not an instructional material and, therefore, can be sold to
students. It faults the voluntary
arbitrator for his shortsighted appreciation of the case; the recommendation of
the investigating committee clearly reflected that the rule violated was
Memorandum No. P-66 s. 1992-1993.[27] This notwithstanding, the TIP argues that
Memorandum No. P-25 s. 2000-2001 and Memorandum No. P-22 s. 1988-1989 must be viewed in
relation with the prohibition under Section 94 of the Manual of Regulations for
Private Schools against any form of collections from students.[28] It thus posits that the question of whether “test
questionnaires” are instructional materials becomes irrelevant since the
prohibited act is the selling or collecting of contributions without the
approval of the school. It is quick to
add, however, that the CA is correct in classifying examination papers as “instructional
materials.”
On the issue of due process, the TIP claims that it duly notified Salon of the
charges against her consisting of (1) her having collected money from her
students for test papers without the approval of the school, and (2) the complaint of the father of the tampering
of the grade of his son (Manalo). The
school asked Salon to submit her written answer to the charges against
her. She was also given the opportunity
to explain her side at the investigation hearing. Thereafter, she was given the required notice
of termination.
On Salon's third assignment of error, the
TIP submits that the petition for review it filed with the CA complied with the
requirement on statement of material dates under the Rules of Court.[29] It disputes Salon's argument that it is not
sufficient to state the material dates in the body of the petition and that a
separate verified statement must be attached.
It maintains that a perusal of the specific applicable rule shows that
the statement of material dates in a petition for review under Rule 43 need not
be in a separate attachment under oath.[30]
The TIP then points out that the
petition filed with the CA states that the school received the decision of the
voluntary arbitrator dated July 14, 2001 on August 10, 2001; on August 16,
2001, it moved for reconsideration of the voluntary arbitration award, and
received on September 17, 2001 the order dated September 6, 2001, denying the
motion for reconsideration. It explains
that with the verification/certification under oath that “all allegations in
the petition for review are true and correct,” the statements of material dates made on
pages 1 and 4 of the petition are therefore verified or certified under oath. The CA thus held that since a review of the
material dates revealed that the petition was filed within the fifteen-day
period from petitioner TIPTEO's receipt of the voluntary arbitrators' denial of
its motion for reconsideration, the petition could be given due course.[31]
The TIP lastly contends that under the Court's
Revised Circular No. 1-88[32] that
Salon cited, the dismissal of a case where there is no verified statement of
material dates is at the discretion of the court. It then concludes with the statement that it
has been held in a number of cases that rules on technicalities are adopted to
serve justice and equity, and not to hamper them.
THE COURT'S DECISION
We resolve to DENY the petition for lack of merit.
The Procedural
Issue
We first resolve the procedural
question raised – the alleged failure of TIP to attach a verified statement of the
material dates to its petition with the CA, as required by the Rules of Court[33]
and Supreme Court Revised Circular No. 1-88.[34]
We clarify in this regard that the
review the TIP filed with the appellate court was not a special civil action
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court; it was an appeal to
the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43. This is consistent with our ruling in Luzon
Development Bank v. Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees[35]
that decisions of voluntary arbitrators or panel of voluntary arbitrators
should be appealable to the CA. The CA correctly treated the petition of TIP as
an appeal filed under Rule 43 which, parenthetically, also requires a statement
of material dates in the petition.[36] The rationale for the requirement is to
enable the appellate court to determine whether the petition was filed within
the period fixed in the rules.[37]
The CA reviewed the material dates
contained in the petition and concluded that the petition “was filed within
the fifteen (15)-day period from receipt of the voluntary arbitrator's denial
of its motion for reconsideration
x x x .”
Proceeding from this premise and in the exercise of the discretion
granted it by the Rules in considering technical deficiencies, the CA concluded
that the petition “could be given due
course.”[38] We respect the CA’s exercise of its
discretion as it was exercised within the limits allowed by the Rules; the
material data on the filing of the petition are reflected in the petition. The
CA was therefore properly guided in considering whether the petition had been
timely filed. Consequently, we declare
that the CA committed no reversible error when it gave due course to the
petition.
The Substantive
Issues
a. The
The first substantive issue is on the
sale of test papers to students. We find
it unfortunate that the tribunals below failed to recognize the appropriate TIP
rule that should govern the situation.
Thus, Memorandums Nos. P-22, P-25, and P-66 have all been invoked. To clear the air, Memorandum No. P-22 is an issuance on August 4, 1988 on the
subject: Mimeographed Examinations whose relevant terms provide:[39]
There have been
complaints received by this office that a number of teachers have been abusing
the use of printed test materials to the detriment of the students:
1.
A
certain teacher uses the same printed matter in all of his classes and charges
each student P1.00. This printed test
material is only one page.
2.
Some
teachers are having printed examinations for which they charge the students
exhorbitantly.
x x x
To correct these
practices we have several suggestions:
x x x
3. Faculty members who have no other recourse
but to print their examinations should ask for the permission of their Faculty
Coordinator, Department Head or Dean before they sell such examination papers
to students.
4. The cost of the stenciled examination paper
should be determined by the Faculty Coordinator, Department Head and Dean by
presenting the official receipts or the cost of printing. More or less, the cost per page should be for
Newsprint paper – P0.40 and Whitewove paper – P0.60.
For your
guidance and strict compliance effective this semester SY 1988-89.
We
quote this Memorandum in full because it indicates the concern that the school
sought to address in coming out with a regulation, which concern is exactly the
cause for the students’ complaints. The
Memorandum stresses, too, that an approval process had been in place as early
as 1989.
Memorandum
No. P-25 issued in 2000-2001 is on the subject of
Memorandum
No. P-66 issued on P0.25 to P0.35 centavos per page. x x x 2.
Any faculty member found violating
the school’s policies shall be subject to disciplinary action, either
suspension or dismissal, depending on the gravity of the offense.”
Under these regulatory measures,
it appears clearly that Memorandum No. P-22, while specifically on the subject
of Mimeographed Examinations, is not the current TIP issuance on the
matter. Memorandum No. P-66 is the latest
issuance and the one that specifies the requirements and penalizes
violations. On the other hand,
Memorandum No. P-25 appears to be an issuance with little relevance on the
present dispute because it deals with instructional materials and by its own
terms does not cover “other photocopy needs of the students.” An additional reason for its irrelevance, of
course, is the existence of at least two issuances that deal specifically with
examination papers.
Salon never denied that she had charged
her students the cost of their examination papers without the approval of the
proper school authorities pursuant to Memorandums Nos. P-22 and P-66. The rationale behind the school policy of
closely regulating the cost and sale of examination papers is to free the
students from avoidable financial burdens, and to prevent the abuse of the use
of printed examination papers by the teachers, as expressly stated in
Memorandum No. P-22. It is of no moment
that Salon kept within the price range set by the school for the cost per page of
the examination paper. Her transgressions
spring from her failure to secure prior approval of her use of photocopied exam
papers, and of the attendant cost. These
transgressions link up directly with the students’ allegations that they had to
return and could not write on the exam papers they paid for – a possible
indicator of the intent to abuse.[41]
Salon's guilt is not erased or
mitigated by her excuse that she had no choice but to secure reimbursement from
the students for the cost of the examination papers that the school should
provide but does not. The school does not deny that the teachers have to be
reimbursed, but at the same time it imposes measures to avoid abuses. Unless
there is a showing of patent unreasonableness (and we find none in this case),
these measures have to be complied with.
In saying this, we do not thereby indicate our approval of the school
practice of not providing test papers as part of services to students covered
by their matriculation fees. Tests are the traditional and the accepted mode of
measuring students’ performance and should be part and parcel of the basic services
that a school should offer. Charging their
costs to students at the time of the examination renders the students’ capacity
to take the examinations dependent on their finances at examination time. However, these are policy questions outside
the scope of our present inquiry, as the substantive reasonableness of the
school’s policies and issuances is not a question directly before us, nor are
these issuances patently unreasonable. Thus,
they do not enter the picture at all in the determination of Salon’s guilt and
penalty.
b. Grade Tampering
Salon admitted that she changed the
grade of Manalo from one of “failure” (5.0) to “dropped” (6.0) at
the behest of a colleague, the mother of Manalo, to save the son from being
harmed by his father for his failing grade.
Salon thought she was doing the family of Manalo a favor, but her act
produced the opposite result because the father himself lodged a complaint
against her for grade tampering;[42]
as suspected all along, the father was
not satisfied with a grade of 6.0 for his son.
As in the case of unauthorized selling
of examination papers, Salon's guilt is
not erased or mitigated by the fact that she meant well, or that she tried to
rectify her indiscretion after realizing that she violated the grading system
of the school.[43] Two differences exist between the examination
paper selling violation and the present one.
First, her examination paper
violation is largely a transgression against a school regulation. The present one goes beyond a school
violation; it is a violation against the Manual of Regulation for Private
Schools whose Section 79 provides: [44]
Sec. 79. Basis for Grading. The final grade or rating given to a pupil or
student in a subject should be based on his scholastic record. Any addition or diminution to the grade x x x
shall not be allowed.
Second, the present violation involves
elements of falsification and dishonesty.
Knowing fully what Manalo deserved, Salon gave him a grade of 6.0
instead of a failing grade. In the
process, she changed – in short, falsified – her own records by changing the
submitted record and the supporting documents.
Viewed in any light, this is Serious Misconduct under Article 282(a) of
the Labor Code, and a just cause for termination of employment.
Be that as it may, the mother of
Manalo, being a teacher herself, should have been questioned or investigated
for urging Salon to give her son a passing grade. What Mrs. Manalo did was in itself highly
irregular and should have been subjected to disciplinary action, in the
interest of fairness.
The Due Process Issue
Salon claims that her right to due
process was violated because her investigation was a “hoax,”[45] a
gripe session where the complaining students were allowed to engage in a
spontaneous barrage of malicious allegations against her, and where she was not
afforded an opportunity to defend herself and to be represented by a counsel of
her own choice or by a union representation.
She adds that she was not given any notice before her termination.
The records of the case belie these
claims.
Salon was given the opportunity to
show cause why she should not be dismissed.
First, in a Memorandum dated P0.50
a page;[48] and (b) her
letter dated November 14, 2000 addressed to TIP President Dr. Teresita U.
Quirino, where she admitted changing the grade of Manalo.[49]
Second. An investigation was conducted by a committee
created by the TIP, which
submitted a report/recommendation dated November 20, 2000, confirming the
unauthorized selling of examination papers and the tampering of the
grade of
Manalo. The committee recommended
Salon's dismissal.[50]
Third. In a memorandum dated December 4, 2000,[51] Dr.
Quirino advised Salon that her position as Faculty Member is terminated
effective 30 days from receipt of the memorandum.[52] This was her notice of termination – the 2nd
notice that statutory due process requires in a dismissal situation.
Thus, not only was
Salon notified in writing about the charges against her, she was
given a
reasonable opportunity to explain her side; she was also called to an
investigation where, again, she had the opportunity to explain why she should
not be dismissed. She was only dismissed
after the conclusion of the investigation and after she had been given a second
notice in writing that she was being terminated as a faculty member of the
school. In short, she has
nothing to complain about in terms of the process she underwent that led to her
dismissal.
The Penalty
In the same breath that she justifies
her actions, Salon entreats this Court to
impose on her a penalty less harsh than dismissal if she will be held accountable
for her misdeeds.[53]
She points out in this regard that it was the first time that she was charged
of an offense, and that she had been with the school for more than ten (10)
years already, and there was no bad faith or malicious intention on her part.[54]
We do not find these entreaties
sufficiently compelling or convincing as Salon is no ordinary employee. She is a teacher from whom a lot is expected;
she is expected to be an exemplar of uprightness, integrity and decency, not
only in the school, but also in the larger community. She is a role model for her students; in
fact, as she claims, she stands in loco parenti to them. She is looked up to and is accorded genuine
respect by almost everyone as a person tasked with the heavy responsibility of
molding and guiding the young into what they should be – productive and
law-abiding citizens.
What Salon committed is a corrupt act,
no less, that we cannot allow to pass without giving a wrong signal to all who
look up to teachers, and to this Court, as the models who should lead the way
and set the example in fostering a culture of uprightness among the young and
in the larger community. From the
personal perspective, Salon demonstrated, through her infractions, that she is
not fit to continue undertaking the serious task and the heavy responsibility of
a teacher. She failed in a teacher’s most basic task – in honestly rating the
performance of students. Her failings lost her the trust and confidence of her
employer, and even of her students.
Under the circumstances, our conclusion
can only be for Salon’s dismissal for two counts of valid causes – i.e., for
serious violation of TIP’s Memorandum No. P-66, for unauthorized selling of
examination papers, and for serious misconduct, for falsifying Manalo’s grade
and violating the grading rules under the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools.
The affirmation of the penalties the CA
imposed brings into focus the appellate court’s award of separation pay in
consideration of her more than 10 years of service with TIP.[55] Given the finding of guilt and the penalty
imposed, no basis exists to support and justify this award. No court, not even this Court, can make an
award that is not based on law.[56] Neither can this award be justified even if
viewed as a discretionary financial assistance, since this kind of award can be
imposed only where the cause for dismissal is not serious misconduct or a cause
reflecting on the employee’s moral character.[57] The dismissal we affirm is precisely for
serious misconduct. The causes cited reflect
as well on Salon’s moral character.
Hence, we delete any award of separation pay/financial assistance that the
appellate court decreed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
we hereby DENY
the petition for lack of
merit. We hereby AFFIRM the amended
decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on May 22, 2003, but
DELETE the award of separation
pay. Costs against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Designated additional Member of the Second
Division per Special Order No. 645 dated
** Designated additional Member of the
Second Division effective
***
Designated additional Member of the Second Division effective
[1] Filed pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; rollo, pp. 3-48.
[2] CA G.R. SP No. 66896; penned by Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr.,with Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia (retired member of this Court) and Associate Justice Sergio L. Pestaño, concurring; id., pp. 49-52.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Supra note 3.
[11] Rollo, pp. 53-57.
[12]
[13] Supra note 2.
[14] Supra note 3.
[15] Supra note 9.
[16] Supra note 11.
[17] The New International Webster Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language, Encyclopedic Edition (1998), p. 1298
[18] Supra note 12.
[19] Rollo, pp. 76-77.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Supra note 11.
[27] Supra note 25.
[28] Rollo, p. 119; TIP's Comment, p. 12, last par.
[29] Section 6, Rule 43.
[30]
[31] Rollo, pp. 72-73; Decision promulgated
on
[32]
Implementing Section 12, Art XVIII of the 1987 Constitution and Complementing
Administrative Circular No. 1 of
[33] Supra note 29.
[34] Supra note 32.
[35] G.R. No. 120319,
[36] Supra note 33.
[37]
[38] Supra note 31.
[39] Supra note 12.
[40] Supra note 11.
[41] Supra note 4, p. 2.
[42] Supra note 19.
[43] Rollo, p. 78, Salon’s affidavit, last paragraph.
[44] DECS Order No. 92, Series of 1992.
[45]
[46] Supra note 4, p. 2.
[47] Rollo, p. 143, TIP’s Comment, Annex “2.”
[48] Supra note 5.
[49] Supra note 19.
[50] Supra note 7.
[51] Supra note 8.
[52]
[53] Rollo, p. 26; Petition, par. 36.
[54]
[55]
[56] PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, Article VIII,
Section 14.
[57] PLDT
v. NLRC, L-80609, August 23, 1980, 164 SCRA 671; see also Cosmopolitan
Funeral Homes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 86693, July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 109; Toyota
Motor Phils. Corp. Workers Association (TMPCWA) v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 158786
& 158789;