G.R. No. 149404 ; September 15, 2006
MA. SALVACION G. AQUINO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ST. PAUL’S COLLEGE OF MANILA, INC. and SR. NATIVIDAD DE JESUS FERRAREN, S.P.C., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Salvacion G. Aquino, a professor at St. Paul’s College of Manila for 22 years, verbally accepted a summer teaching load for 1998. Needing to travel abroad, she sought a schedule change. Despite knowing the college policy requiring the president/dean’s approval for such changes, she altered her schedule in March 1998 based on alleged endorsements from her department chair and the registrar, without securing the required approval from respondent Sr. Natividad Ferraren. She only formally notified Sr. Ferraren via a letter delivered on April 26, 1998, the day before her departure. The college issued a show-cause memorandum on May 19, 1998, charging her with various offenses including abandonment and insubordination.
Upon returning and submitting her explanation on June 10, 1998, petitioner verbally requested Sr. Ferraren to forgo an administrative hearing and expressed her desire to retire early instead. Sr. Ferraren accommodated this request, instructed the accounting department to compute her benefits, and removed her from the payroll. However, petitioner subsequently failed to submit the promised written retirement request and later filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the NLRC’s dismissal of the illegal dismissal complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic centers on the limited scope of a Rule 65 certiorari petition. Such a petition is not a vehicle to re-evaluate factual findings but is only available to correct jurisdictional errors or grave abuse of discretion by a lower court or tribunal. The NLRC’s factual findings, affirmed by the CA, are accorded finality when supported by substantial evidence. The records substantiated the finding that there was no illegal dismissal. Petitioner’s own actions—changing her schedule without proper authority, leaving for abroad, and subsequently requesting early retirement—led the college to reasonably conclude she had abandoned her teaching duties. Her verbal retirement request, which the college acted upon in good faith, effectively severed the employment relationship. The Court found no indication that the CA acted capriciously or whimsically in affirming the NLRC decision. Therefore, the petition, which essentially sought a re-examination of facts, was improper under Rule 65.