G.R. No. 169464 August 31, 2006
ROQUE D.A. DATOR, Petitioner, vs. UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS, REV. FR. TAMERLANE LANA and REV. FR. RODEL ALIGAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Roque D.A. Dator was a faculty member of the University of Santo Tomas (UST) since 1983. In 1995, he commenced full-time employment as a Graft Investigation Officer with the Office of the Ombudsman but failed to disclose this to UST. Upon discovering this outside employment in 2000, UST invoked Section 5 of its Faculty Code, which limits faculty with full-time outside employment to a maximum teaching load of 12 hours per week, and reduced his load accordingly. Dator requested reconsideration and was temporarily granted an additional three units for one school year. However, a subsequent request for further load increase was denied to uphold the policy.
Dator filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter, alleging illegal reduction of teaching load and constructive dismissal. He argued that the Faculty Code provision had been superseded by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which outlined specific grounds and a detailed procedure for deloading that UST did not follow. He contended the reduction, which effectively changed his status from full-time to part-time, violated the CBA and his security of tenure.

ISSUE

Whether the reduction of Dator’s teaching load by UST constituted illegal constructive dismissal and violated the CBA.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of UST, holding that the reduction of teaching load was valid and did not amount to constructive dismissal. The legal logic centered on the hierarchy of laws and the specific factual justification for the action. The Court found that the general provisions of the CBA, which govern ordinary deloading due to operational reasons like reduction of classes, do not abrogate the specific and valid company policy embodied in the Faculty Code. Section 5 of the Faculty Code addresses a distinct situation—a faculty member engaging in full-time outside employment—which is a reasonable regulation to ensure teaching quality and commitment.
The Court emphasized that Dator’s concealment of his outside employment provided UST with a substantive factual and legal basis to apply its specific rule. His subsequent temporary accommodation with extra units did not waive the rule’s application. Since the reduction was grounded on a legitimate rule that Dator violated, and not on any arbitrary or malicious action by UST, there was no constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal requires an act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by the employer that renders continued employment intolerable. UST’s act was a justified enforcement of a reasonable policy, preceded by opportunity for Dator to be heard. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended the Court of Appeals’ decision dismissing the complaint.