RENATO S. GATBONTON, Petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, MAPUA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY and JOSE CALDERON, Respondents.

FIRST DIVISION 

G.R. NO. 146779             January 23, 2006 

GATBONTON VS. NLRC

TOPIC: Art. 2.

FACTS: 

1. Gatbonton is an engineering professor at Mapua Institute of Technology who was reported for unfair/unjust grading, sexual harassment, and conduct unbecoming of an academician. He was then placed under a 30-day preventive suspension on 11 January until 10 February 1999 in accordance with Mapua Rules, Sec 3, Rule IV, in the institute's attempt to enforce Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.

2. The petitioner filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal suspension and claims for damages and attorney's fees. 

3. The petitioner filed a petition of certiorari questioning the validity of the administrative proceeding with RTC Manila but it was terminated when they came to an agreement with the ff. stipulations:

  3.1. to publish in the school organ the rules and regulations implementing Republic Act No. 7877    (R.A. No. 7877) or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act;

  3.2.   disregard the previous administrative proceedings and conduct anew an investigation on the      charges against petitioner.

4. Labor Arbiter's 18June 1999 decision declared the preventive suspension illegal, directed the respondents to pay the backwages of the petitioner for his 30-day suspension, and dismissed petitioner's claim for damages and attorney's fees.

5. Both petitioner and respondent appealed:

   5.1. Petitioner appealed and question the dismissal of his claims;

   5.2. Respondent appealed to set aside the Labor Arbiter's decision.

6. CA affirmed NLRC's decision. Petitioner submitted a motion for reconsideration but it was denied.

7. Gatbonton then filed a petitioner for certiorari.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not Gatbonton violated Mapua Institute Technology's Rules and Regulations in accordance with the Anti-sexual Harassment Act? 

2. Whether the damages be awarded.

RULING:

1. NO. Gatbonton was suspended starting 11 January 1999 until 10 February 1999 in accordance with Mapua Rules, Sec 3, Rule IV, in the institute's attempt to enforce the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. However, this was published only on 23 February 1999. The Mapua Rules itself explicitly required publication in its effectivity clause, as provided in Section 3, Rule IV (Administrative Provisions) "These Rules and Regulations to implement the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication by the Committee." Thus, at the time of the imposition of petitioner’s preventive suspension on January 11, 1999, the Mapua Rules were not yet legally effective and only took effect on 11 March. Therefore the suspension had no legal basis. 

2. NO. Damages should not be awarded. The court finds the same to be without basis. While petitioner’s preventive suspension may have been unjustified, this does not automatically mean that he is entitled to moral or other damages. In Cocoland Development Corp. vs. NLRC. In Primero vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court held that "… an award (of moral damages) cannot be justified solely upon the premise (otherwise sufficient for redress under the Labor Code) that the employer fired his employee without just cause or due process. Additional facts must be pleaded and proven to warrant the grant of moral damages under the Civil Code, these being, to repeat, that the act of dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or was oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy; and of course, that social humiliation, wounded feelings, grave anxiety, etc., resulted therefrom." This was reiterated in Garcia vs. NLRC, where the Court added that exemplary damages may be awarded only if the dismissal was shown to have been effected in a wanton, oppressive or malevolent manner. Respondent failed to prove so. Thus, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.