G.R. No. 96126 August 10, 1992
ESTERIA F. GARCIANO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EMERITO LABAJO, LUNISITA MARODA, LALIANA DIONES, CANONISA PANINSORO, DIONISIO ROSAL, REMEDIOS GALUSO, FLORDELUNA PETALCORIN, MELCHIZEDECH LOON, NORBERTA MARODA and JOSEPH WIERTZ, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Esteria F. Garciano was hired to teach at Immaculate Concepcion Institute for the 1981-82 school year. On January 13, 1982, she applied for an indefinite leave of absence to go to Austria with her daughter, which was approved. On June 1, 1982, school principal Emerito Labajo, through petitioner’s husband, informed her that her services were terminated due to her refusal to sign a written contract and the difficulty of finding a temporary substitute. Upon her return in June 1982, she received this termination notice. However, on July 7, 1982, the Board of Directors of the school (except Fr. Joseph Wiertz) notified her that she was reinstated effective July 5, 1982, and declared the prior termination notice null and void. On July 9, 1982, several Board members resigned due to faculty opposition to the reinstatement. Petitioner filed a complaint for damages for illegal dismissal. The Regional Trial Court ruled in her favor, awarding moral damages, exemplary damages, lost earnings, and attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint and absolving the private respondents from liability. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in absolving the private respondents from liability by faulting the petitioner for her failure to report back to work.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the Board of Directors, which possessed the sole authority to hire and fire, did not dismiss the petitioner and had in fact ordered her reinstatement. The termination letter sent by the private respondents (school principal and faculty) had no legal effect as they lacked authority, and it was subsequently repudiated by the Board. The Court found no evidence that the private respondents physically prevented petitioner from resuming her post. Her failure to report for work as ordered was her own choice. The acts of the private respondents in disagreeing with the Board’s decision, including threats of mass resignation, were exercises of free speech and did not constitute unlawful, willful, or negligent acts contrary to law, morals, good customs, or public policy as required under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code for liability to arise. The Court further ruled that petitioner was not entitled to moral damages as she was not without fault, having taken an indefinite leave, refused to sign a contract, and ignored the Board’s order to report. Exemplary damages were also not justified. The loss incurred was self-inflicted.