Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1985 > April 1985 Decisions > G.R. No. 56566 April 15, 1985 - DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. LOLITA U. LAO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 56566. April 15, 1985.]

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, BROTHER DANIEL ORTIZ, FSC and DEAN PATRICIO CEBALLOS, Petitioners, v. LOLITA U. LAO and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Bausa, Ampil, Suarez, Paredes & Bausa, for Petitioners.

Salva, Villanueva & Associates for respondent Lao.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; COURT; JURISDICTION; ISSUE OF EMPLOYMENT PROPERLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT. — We hold that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have no jurisdiction over the case. It was properly brought before the civil courts. The issue was the existence of employer-employee relations between Lao and the university. Under Article 265(f), later article 217(5), the existence of employer-employee relations is assumed, not disputed. In this case, it is necessary to determine whether Lao became a permanent employee after she was hired as a probationary employee. The determination of that question could be more competently handled by the court after a full-dress trial and not by the Labor Arbiter by means of the position-paper procedure followed by him.

2. CIVIL LAW; CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT; NOT CONSUMMATED; CASE AT BAR. — The other contention of the appellants in their ninth and tenth assignments of error is that Lao never became a permanent employee. We find that the contract for permanent employment was not completed because it was not signed by the university president, it was legally withdrawn before it became effective and it was never delivered to Lao. Lao was a probationary employee. Her probationary employment was the one legally terminated by the university. There can be no doubt as to the university’s prerogative to terminate her probationary employment and not to give her a permanent employment. Lao has no cause of action for damages. It must be conceded that she filed the case in good faith.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


This case is about the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance over the claim for damages of Lolita U. Lao who was allegedly maliciously dismissed as assistant professor of De La Salle University at the end of her one-year probationary term.

The Appellate Court found that Lolita Lao was appointed "non-tenured full-time probationary assistant professor C" at P13,000 a year excluding payment for overload as shown in a memorandum of the chairman of the economics department dated October 22, 1974, addressed to the academic vice-president. It was stated in that memorandum that to strengthen the economics department Lao had been hired full-time effective October 16, 1974. The chairman requested that Lao be included in the faculty list and in the payroll.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Lao assumed her position and performed her academic duties. The secretary of the economics department in June, 1975 gave Lao a contract as a full-time faculty member for the school year 1975-76 at P15,155 per annum. The contract contained the conditions of her appointment. Lao signed it. She placed therein her residence certificate number, place and date of issue (Exh. B).

However, the university president did not sign the contract because Frank Tajanan, the chairman of the economics department, did not forward the contract to him. Lao taught during the first semester of the academic year, 1975-76. In August, 1975, she asked Tajanan what happened to her contract.

Tajanan replied that he intended to terminate her services with the school at the end of that first semester, the end of her one-year probationary period Dr. Patricio R. Ceballos, the dean of the college of arts and sciences, confirmed that fact in his letter to Lao dated August 29, 1975. He stated that Lao’s probationary status would end as of the first semester of academic year 1975-76 and that the university had decided not to enter into a permanent contract with her (Exh. C).

Brother Daniel Ortiz, FSC, the acting dean of the college, in his letter of September 30, 1975 further confirmed the termination of Lao’s services at the end of the first semester, or on October 15, 1975 (Exh. D). Lao protested against the abortion of her contract (Exh. E; 17-26, Record on Appeal).

On October 3, she filed a petition against the university, its president, Brother Ortiz, Ceballos and Tajanan. She prayed that the university and its officials be restrained from terminating her services on October 15, 1975 and for the award of P99,000 as damages. The respondents pleaded that there was no enforceable contract and that the case falls within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission.

Lao’s services were terminated on October 15. On January 7, 1976 she filed an amended petition. She limited her action to the recovery of damages amounting to P99,000. Respondents reiterated their objection to the court’s jurisdiction and their defense that Lao had no cause of action for damages because no contract was violated.

The lower court found that the respondent university, Ortiz, Ceballos and Tajanan violated Lao’ rights under her full-time contract. It sentenced them to pay solidarily to Lao P90,000 as moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. It relied on articles 1701, 20, 21, 2208(11), 2219(10), 2229 and 2232 of the Civil Code. The Appellate Court on November 12, 1980 affirmed the decision. The University and its officials appealed to this Court.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Appellants contend in their eight assignments of error that the case is within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission. The Labor Code, which took effect on May 1, 1974, provides in its article 265(f) that Labor Arbiters have exclusive jurisdiction over "cases or matters arising from employer-employee relations" unless expressly excluded by the Code. As amended and revised, article 265(f) became article 217(5) of the Labor Code.

We hold that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have no jurisdiction over the case. It was properly brought before the civil courts. The issue was the existence of employer-employee relations between Lao and the university. Under Article 265(f), later article 217(5), the existence of employer-employee relations is assumed, not disputed.

In this case, it is necessary to determine whether Lao became a permanent employee after she was hired as a probationary employee. The determination of that question could be more competently handled by the court after a full-dress trial and not by the Labor Arbiter by means of the position-paper procedure followed by him.

The other contention of the appellants in their ninth and tenth assignments of error is that Lao never became a permanent employee. We find that the contract for permanent employment was not completed because it was not signed by the university president, it was legally withdrawn before it became effective and it was never delivered to Lao.

Lao was a probationary employee. Her probationary employment was the one legally terminated by the university. There can be no doubt as to the university’s prerogative to terminate her probationary employment and not to give her a permanent employment. Lao has no cause of action for damages. It must be conceded that she filed the case in good faith.

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and set aside. Lao’s amended petition (complaint) is dismissed. No costs.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

SO ORDERED.

Abad Santos, Cuevas and Alampay, *, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., in the result.

Concepcion Jr. and Escolin, JJ., are on leave.

Endnotes:



* Justice Alampay was designated to sit in the Second Division.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1985 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-42724 April 9, 1985 - GENERAL BANK & TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-43082 April 9, 1985 - PEDRO ESGUERRA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 50900 April 9, 1985 - COMPAÑIA MARITIMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56098 April 9, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO VILLAMIL

  • G.R. No. 63202 April 9, 1985 - DOLORES G. GOMEZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 63397 April 9, 1985 - ALEX LINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-27289 April 15, 1985 - JUAN AGUINALDO v. JOSE ESTEBAN

  • G.R. No. L-43795 April 15, 1985 - JOSE NEGRE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-46096 April 15, 1985 - EMELITA ENAO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 56293 April 15, 1985 - LIBERATO T. BACAYO v. MELECIO A. GENATO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56566 April 15, 1985 - DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. LOLITA U. LAO

  • G.R. No. 61049 April 15, 1985 - HEIRS OF MATILDE CENIZAL ARGUSON v. REMEDIOS MICLAT

  • G.R. No. 65442 April 15, 1985 - HAVERTON SHIPPING LTD. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 68566 April 15, 1985 - ALEX COMBATE v. GERONIMO R. SAN JOSE, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-49071 April 17, 1985 - THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 69198 April 17, 1985 - VENECIO VILLAR v. TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILS.

  • G.R. Nos. 63950-60 April 19, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

  • G.R. No. 60613-20 April 20, 1985 - ROLANDO MANGUBAT v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 56633 April 24, 1985 - MEDICAL DOCTORS, INC. v. NLRC

  • G.R. No. 59343 April 24, 1985 - CARLOS C. PONTAWE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 63915 April 24, 1985 - LORENZO M. TAÑADA v. JUAN C. TUVERA

  • A.M. No. 85-1-6874-RTC April 25, 1985 - IN RE: MILAGROS SANTIA

  • G.R. No. 54538 April 25, 1985 - LUIS YANAS, ET AL. v. ANTONIO ACAYLAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 59072 April 25, 1985 - HIDULFO D. NAZARENO v. ROQUE M. BARNES

  • G.R. No. 66509 April 25, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO B. ALCARAZ

  • G.R. No. 66551 April 25, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. DANIEL

  • G.R. No. 66572-73 April 25, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO F. VERGARA

  • G.R. No. L-24864 April 30, 1985 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-30642 April 30, 1985 - EMERENCIANA JOSE VDA. DE ISLA v. PHILEX MINING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-34124 April 30, 1985 - TADEO P. DAEL v. BERNARDO TEVES

  • G.R. No. L-35563 April 30, 1985 - BETHEL TEMPLE, INC. v. GENERAL COUNCIL OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-39047 April 30, 1985 - ALBERTO PASCUA v. ALFREDO C. FLORENDO

  • G.R. No. L-39379 April 30, 1985 - BONIFACIO GOTICO v. LEYTE CHINESE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

  • G.R. No. L-41039 April 30, 1985 - EBILIO BONGAT v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-42620 April 30, 1985 - MAXIMINO RUELAN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-47941 April 30, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAIME A. TOMOTORGO

  • G.R. No. L-52718 April 30, 1985 - NILO I. ITURIAGA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. Nos. L-67002-03 April 30, 1985 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. RICARDO Q. ENCARNACION

  • G.R. No. L-69640-45 April 30, 1985 - MIGUEL P. PADERANGA v. CESAR R. AZURA