Gatbonton v. NLRC and Mapua
G.R. NO. 146779 January 23, 2006
Lessons Applicable: Publication must be in
full, Preventive suspension, damages
Laws Applicable: Art. 2 Civil Code, Section 8, Rule XXIII, Book V of the Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Labor Code
FACTS:
·
November 1998: A civil
engineering student of respondent Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT) filed a
letter-complaint against Renato S. Gatbonton, an associate professor of the Faculty of Civil
Engineering for unfair/unjust grading system, sexual harassment and conduct
unbecoming of an academician.
·
Pending investigating, MIT,
through its committee on Decorum and Investigation placed him under a 30-day
preventive suspension effective January 11, 1999.
o
The committee believed that his
continued stay during the investigation will affect his performance as a
faculty member, as well as the student’s learning and that the suspension will
allow petitioner to “prepare himself for the investigation and will prevent his
influence to other members of the community.
·
He filed a complaint with the NLRC for
illegal suspension, damages and attorney’s fees
·
He questioned
the validity of the administrative proceedings with the RTC in a petition for
certiorari but was terminated since MIT agreed to publish in the school organ the rules
and regulations implementing Republic Act No. 7877 (R.A. No. 7877) and disregard
the previous administrative proceedings
·
Labor
Arbiter: 30-day preventive suspension is illegal and directed MIT to pay his wages during the said period
·
NLRC: set
aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision
·
CA on special
civil action for certiorari: affirming the NLRC
Issues:
- Whether Mapua’s Rules and Regulations is effective as of
January 11, 1999 when it was published only on February 23, 1999 (persons)
- W/N there is a valid justification for the 30-day
preventive suspension under the Labor Code (labor)
- Whether damages should be awarded
Held: Petition is partially granted. CA, NLRC
set aside and Labors Arbiter reinstated
1.
NO
·
R.A. No.
7877 imposed the duty on educational or training institutions to
"promulgate rules and regulations in consultation with and jointly
approved by the employees or students or trainees, through their duly
designated representatives, prescribing the procedures for the investigation of
sexual harassment cases and the administrative sanctions therefor
·
Taňada vs. Tuvera:
o
all statutes, including those
of local application and private laws shall be published as a condition for
their effectivity is fixed by the legislative.(especially penal laws)
o
Covered by
this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the
President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly
delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the
Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if
their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid
delegation.
·
publication
must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform
the public of the contents of the laws
·
Mapua
Rules is one of those issuances that should be published for its effectivity,
since its purpose is to enforce and implement R.A. No. 7877, which is a law of
general application
o
Mapua Rules Section 3 Rule IV
(Administrative Provisions) states that it shall take effect 15 days after
publication by the committee.
2.
NO.
·
Preventive
suspension is a disciplinary measure for the protection of the company’s
property pending investigation of any alleged malfeasance or misfeasance committed
by the employee. The employer may place the worker concerned under preventive
suspension if his continued employment poses a serious and imminent threat to
the life or property of the employer or of his co-workers. However, when it is determined that there is no
sufficient basis to justify an employee’s preventive suspension, the latter is
entitled to the payment of salaries during the time of preventive suspension
·
Section 8, Rule XXIII, Book V
of the Ominibus Rules, there is no valid justification
o
does not
show that evidence of petitioner’s guilt is strong and that the school head is
morally convinced that petitioner’s continued stay during the period of
investigation constitutes a distraction to the normal operations of the
institution; or that petitioner poses a risk or danger to the life or property
of the other members of the educational community
3.
No.
·
While
petitioner’s preventive suspension may have been unjustified, this does not
automatically mean that he is entitled to moral or other damages
o
No showing
of bad faith or in a wanton or fraudulent manner in preventively suspending
petitioner
