G.R. No. 171303 , January 20, 2016
ELIZABETH L. DIAZ, Petitioner, vs. GEORGINA R. ENCANTO, ERNESTO G. TABUJARA, GEMINO H. ABAD and UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elizabeth L. Diaz, an associate professor at the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Mass Communication (CMC), applied for a one-year sabbatical leave with pay effective June 1988. Her application was initially recommended for approval by her department chair but was later recommended for denial by CMC Dean Georgina R. Encanto due to a shortage of teaching staff. The application was subsequently referred through UP officials, including Chancellor Ernesto G. Tabujara and Vice President for Academic Affairs Gemino H. Abad, but remained unresolved for an extended period. During the first semester of Academic Year (AY) 19881989, Diaz did not teach, and her salary was withheld from July 1988 onward because her sabbatical application was pending and she had not reported for duty. She taught during the second semester of AY 19881989 but was not paid because she refused to submit a Report for Duty Form, which UP required to officialize her return. Diaz filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman, which was dismissed, and her subsequent petitions to the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 88834 and 89207) were also dismissed. She then filed a civil case for damages against the respondents. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Diaz, awarding unpaid salaries and damages, but later amended its decision to absolve Encanto from liability. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the RTC and dismissed Diaz’s complaint. Diaz elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s decision and dismissing Diaz’s complaint for damages against the respondents.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the respondents did not act with bad faith, malice, or gross negligence in handling Diaz’s sabbatical leave application and in requiring her to submit a Report for Duty Form. The delay in resolving her application was due to administrative processes and Diaz’s own failure to follow proper procedures. The Court emphasized that a sabbatical leave is a privilege, not a right, and its grant is subject to the discretion of UP authorities based on the exigencies of the service. The Ombudsman and the Supreme Court in prior rulings had already found no bad faith on the part of the respondents. Consequently, Diaz was not entitled to moral or exemplary damages. However, the Court ordered UP to pay Diaz her unpaid salaries for the periods she actually taught (second semester of AY 19881989 and from July 16, 1989, to May 31, 1990), subject to her submission of the required Report for Duty Form or its equivalent, as these were earned through services rendered. The award of attorney’s fees was deleted due to the absence of bad faith.