G.R. No. 96301 ; May 28, 1991
COLEGIO DEL STO. NIÑO and/or Fr. AMBROCIO GALINDEZ, OSA RECTOR, Fr. NICOLAS ECHEVARIA, OSA DIRECTOR, Fr. ROGELIO POSITAR, OSA, Mrs. JOSEFINA BACALSO, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and ANDREA OSORIO and PAZ JARANILLA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents Andrea Osorio and Paz Jaranilla were teachers employed by petitioner Colegio del Sto. Niño de Cebu. In a letter dated May 6, 1988, the School Rector advised them of the termination of their services on grounds of incompetence, misconduct, and insubordination. The teachers did not accept their dismissal and filed a joint complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch in Cebu City, demanding reinstatement, back wages, refund of illegal deductions, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the teachers, ordering their reinstatement with back salaries. Both parties appealed to the NLRC.
The NLRC, in its decision dated June 14, 1990, dismissed the petitioner’s appeal for having been filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period. It modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by awarding full backwages from dismissal until actual reinstatement, moral and exemplary damages, refund of illegal salary deductions, salary adjustments under R.A. 6640, and attorney’s fees. The petitioners then filed the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petitioner’s appeal for tardiness; and (2) Whether the dismissal of the private respondents was legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the procedural issue, the Court held that perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. The decision of the Labor Arbiter was received on February 3, 1989, by Atty. Emigdio B. Tancinco, the counsel of record. Notice to him constituted notice to the petitioner. The excuse of changing counsel and the new lawyers’ late receipt of records did not extend the appeal period. The NLRC correctly dismissed the appeal for tardiness, following the precedent in Narag vs. NLRC.
On the substantive merits, the Court found the dismissal illegal. The private respondents were summarily dismissed without being accorded due process—they were not given proper notice of the charges nor an opportunity to be heard. The supposed report of an evaluation committee, which found them guilty, was based on an ex parte proceeding. The Court upheld the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, which are binding absent exceptional circumstances. The evidence suggested the dismissal was a retaliatory act for the teachers’ complaints against the acting principal, not a valid termination for cause.
The award of moral and exemplary damages was justified due to the high-handed and surreptitious manner of dismissal. The Court also affirmed the orders for refund of illegal deductions and salary adjustments, as these were prayed for in the complaint. While recognizing the petitioner’s academic freedom, the Court emphasized that such freedom does not grant absolute authority over employees or exempt the institution from observing due process and fair play.