G.R. No. 212333. March 28, 2022
COLEGIO SAN AGUSTIN-BACOLOD AND/OR FR. FREDERICK C. COMENDADOR, PETITIONERS, VS. MELINDA M. MONTAÑO, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Respondent Dr. Melinda M. Montaño was employed by petitioner Colegio San Agustin-Bacolod (CSA-Bacolod), first as a chemistry instructor in 1973 and later as School Registrar from 2003. In 2009, she allowed certain students to participate in the graduation ceremony despite their academic deficiencies, claiming she was continuing a practice of previous registrars and acting for humanitarian reasons, with written requests from students and endorsements from deans. She did not issue Special Order numbers, meaning the students were not considered graduates. Following complaints from faculty members, CSA-Bacolod’s president issued a notice of charges against her for gross misconduct, tampering of records, and willful breach of trust, and placed her under preventive suspension. After an investigation by an Ad Hoc Committee, which she initially refused to attend, her employment was terminated. She filed a complaint for illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and other claims. The Labor Arbiter ruled in her favor, declaring the suspension and dismissal illegal and awarding backwages, separation pay, salary differentials, damages, and attorney’s fees. The NLRC reversed this, finding the dismissal valid and denying all awards. The Court of Appeals then reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision with modifications, deleting the awards for salary differentials and damages but affirming the illegality of the dismissal and awarding backwages and separation pay.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that respondent Montaño was illegally dismissed and in awarding her backwages and separation pay.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that respondent Montaño was illegally dismissed. Her act of allowing ineligible students to march, while a violation of school policy, did not constitute serious misconduct or willful breach of trust warranting dismissal. The Court found that her actions were not done in a malicious or fraudulent manner; she followed a prior practice, acted on written requests with dean endorsements, and did not issue Special Order numbers, thus the school’s academic integrity was not compromised. The offense was simple misconduct, for which dismissal is too severe a penalty. Furthermore, her preventive suspension was deemed illegal as her continued presence did not pose a serious and imminent threat to the school’s property or persons. Consequently, she is entitled to full backwages from the date of her illegal dismissal until finality of the decision, and separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to strained relations. The awards for moral and exemplary damages and salary differentials were correctly deleted by the Court of Appeals for lack of basis.
