Dator v. University of Santo Tomas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Roque D.A. Dator was hired by respondent University of Santo Tomas (UST) in June 1983 as an Instructor I. In December 1995, he was also hired as Graft Investigation Officer II by the Office of the Ombudsman but failed to disclose this outside employment to UST. UST discovered this during the first semester of School Year 2000-2001, leading to the reduction of petitioner's teaching load from 24 units to 12 units per week, pursuant to Section 5, Article III of the UST Faculty Code. Petitioner's request for reconsideration was granted, giving him an additional three teaching hours. However, a subsequent request for an additional three units in June 2001 was denied. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint with the Grievance Committee, which was dismissed. His appeal to the Rector of UST was also denied. Subsequently, petitioner filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal reduction of teaching load, illegal change of employment status, damages, unpaid benefits, attorney's fees, and illegal constructive dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of UST. On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ordered the restoration of petitioner's full-time status. UST filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the NLRC decision and dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution. He raised issues concerning the justification for his deloading, due process, interpretation of the CBA and Faculty Code, misrepresentation, burden of proof, and bad faith on the part of UST.
Issue(s)
Whether the reduction of petitioner's teaching load was justified. Whether petitioner was denied due process. Whether petitioner committed misrepresentation. Whether the UST Faculty Code has been superseded by the CBA. Whether UST acted in bad faith.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing petitioner's complaint for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the justification for the reduction of petitioner's teaching load: The Court held that the reduction was justified. While the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provides grounds for deloading, the determination of whether a faculty member is considered full-time or part-time is governed by the UST Faculty Code. Section 5, Article III of the Faculty Code clearly states that faculty members with full-time outside employment are limited to a 12-hour teaching load per week. The petitioner's employment with the Office of the Ombudsman as a Graft Investigation Officer II constituted full-time outside employment, thus triggering the application of this provision. The Court found no conflict between the CBA and the Faculty Code, as Article XX of the CBA stipulates that provisions of the Faculty Code not incorporated in the CBA and not in conflict with it remain in effect. The Faculty Code's provision on full-time outside employment addresses the faculty member's status, which is distinct from the grounds for deloading under the CBA. Therefore, the reduction was a consequence of the petitioner's status as a full-time employee elsewhere, not a deloading for reasons specified in the CBA. On whether petitioner was denied due process: The Court found that petitioner was accorded due process. He was informed of the reason for the reduction in his teaching load. He was given an opportunity to be heard and to seek reconsideration, which was initially granted, resulting in an additional three teaching hours. After his second request was denied, he availed himself of the grievance procedure provided in the CBA and even appealed to the Rector. The Court emphasized that due process merely requires an opportunity to be heard, which the petitioner had. His subsequent filing of a complaint before the Labor Arbiter further demonstrates that he was not prevented from asserting his rights. On whether petitioner committed misrepresentation: The Court found that petitioner committed misrepresentation. He failed to disclose his full-time employment with the Office of the Ombudsman, which was a violation of Section 6, Article III of the Faculty Code, requiring faculty members to submit a statement of their teaching hours and daily hours of work or employment, inside or outside the University. Petitioner's attempt to argue that the Office of the Ombudsman did not fall under the categories requiring disclosure was deemed flimsy. His own letter-request admitted awareness of limitations on teaching loads for government employees to avoid prejudice to both the government and the university, confirming his knowledge of the rule. On whether the UST Faculty Code has been superseded by the CBA: The Court clarified that the UST Faculty Code was not entirely superseded by the CBA. Article XX of the CBA explicitly states that provisions of the Faculty Code not incorporated in the CBA and not in conflict with it remain in full force and effect. The Court found that the provision in the Faculty Code regarding the teaching load limitation for faculty members with full-time outside employment did not conflict with any provision in the CBA. The CBA provisions on deloading addressed specific reasons for reducing a faculty member's load, whereas the Faculty Code provision addressed the faculty member's status and consequent load limitation due to external full-time employment. Thus, both could coexist and apply to different situations. On whether UST acted in bad faith: The Court rejected the claim that UST acted in bad faith. The reduction of petitioner's teaching load was based on a clear provision of the Faculty Code and was implemented after the discovery of his undisclosed full-time employment elsewhere. The Court noted that UST had merely implemented its Faculty Code and that the petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence to support his allegations of bad faith or discrimination. The initial accommodation of his request for an additional three units also indicated a willingness to be equitable, but this did not negate the application of the Faculty Code's provisions.
Main Doctrine
A faculty member who holds a full-time employment elsewhere is considered part-time and subject to a 12-hour teaching load limitation under the Faculty Code, even if the CBA provides grounds for deloading, as the Faculty Code addresses the status of being full-time or part-time, which is distinct from authorized deloading under the CBA. Failure to disclose such outside employment constitutes misrepresentation.