GR 146779; (January, 2006) (Digest)

G.R. No. 146779; January 23, 2006
Renato S. Gatbonton, Petitioner, vs. National Labor Relations Commission, Mapua Institute of Technology and Jose Calderon, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Renato S. Gatbonton, an associate professor at Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT), was placed under a 30-day preventive suspension in January 1999 pending investigation of a student’s complaint for sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming of an academician. MIT’s Committee on Decorum and Investigation imposed the suspension, citing that his continued stay might affect institutional operations and student learning. Gatbonton filed a complaint for illegal suspension before the Labor Arbiter, who ruled the suspension illegal and ordered payment of his withheld wages but dismissed his claim for damages.
Both parties appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter and upheld the suspension’s validity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC decision. Gatbonton elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the preventive suspension was invalid because the MIT rules authorizing it were published only in February 1999, after his suspension began. He also contested the denial of his claim for damages.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) Whether the preventive suspension of Gatbonton was valid and legal; and (2) Whether he was entitled to an award of damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the first issue, the Court ruled the preventive suspension was illegal. Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure permissible only if the employee’s continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat. MIT justified the suspension under its own Rules and Regulations for Implementing the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (R.A. No. 7877). However, these rules were published only on February 23, 1999. Applying the doctrine in Tañada vs. Tuvera, administrative rules and regulations must be published to be effective. Since the rules were not yet published at the time of Gatbonton’s suspension on January 11, 1999, they could not provide a legal basis for the suspension. Consequently, the suspension was illegal, and Gatbonton was entitled to payment of his salaries for the suspension period.
On the second issue, the Court upheld the denial of damages. Moral and exemplary damages in labor cases require clear evidence that the act was attended by bad faith, fraud, or was oppressive. The records contained no such evidence showing MIT acted in a wanton, fraudulent, or malevolent manner in imposing the preventive suspension. Therefore, the Labor Arbiter correctly dismissed the claim for damages. The Court reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision declaring the suspension illegal and ordering payment of back wages, but without an award of damages.