G.R. No. 189629, August 6, 2014
DR. PHYLIS C. RIO, Petitioner, vs. COLEGIO DE STA. ROSA-MAKATI and/or SR. MARILYN B. GUSTILO, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dr. Phylis C. Rio was hired as a part-time school physician by respondent Colegio De Sta. Rosa-Makati in June 1993, working four hours per week. In February 2002, she received a Contract of Appointment requiring her to report Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., with a decreased salary, which she declined. On June 24, 2002, respondent Gustilo issued a Memorandum unilaterally changing her work schedule, which petitioner also opposed. On July 30, 2002, respondent Gustilo charged petitioner and the school nurse with “grave misconduct, dishonesty and/or gross neglect of duty” based on the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and the Labor Code, and preventively suspended them for thirty days. The charges included: (1) nine students having medical records for school years prior to their enrollment; (2) seventy-nine students not given medical/health evaluations; and (3) failure to conduct medical examinations on all students of several classes for the school year 2001-2002. Petitioner denied the charges. On August 9, 2002, she filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and illegal suspension. An investigation committee was formed, and on October 8, 2002, petitioner’s services were terminated. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of petitioner, declaring illegal dismissal and ordering reinstatement with backwages. The NLRC reversed this decision, finding the dismissal legal. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s Petition for Certiorari, affirming the NLRC.

ISSUE

Whether the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ruling that petitioner was legally dismissed.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Court, in a Rule 45 review, examines whether the Court of Appeals correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision. Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner failed to show that the NLRC acted in such a manner. The antecedents showed respondent school had sufficient reason to terminate petitioner’s services. Based on Article 282 of the Labor Code and Section 94 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, petitioner was legally dismissed on grounds of gross inefficiency, incompetence, and negligence in keeping or falsifying records. The unrefuted facts established petitioner’s failure to diligently perform her duties, including: medical examinations scheduled on weekends, failure to conduct examinations on students for consecutive years, lack of medical records, and students having records prior to enrollment. These acts constitute gross neglect of duty, defined as negligence characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act willfully and intentionally with conscious indifference to consequences. Therefore, the dismissal was valid.