Ogalisco v. Holy Trinity College
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Danilo Ogalisco, a regular faculty member of Holy Trinity College since March 1992, was accused of having an illicit affair with a married co-teacher, Mrs. Crisanta Hitalia. The school's administration initiated an investigation into this alleged immorality, alongside charges of absenteeism, tardiness, and inefficiency. Procedural History: Following an investigation where Ogalisco claimed he was not afforded due process, he was dismissed on June 24, 1998. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The labor arbiter dismissed the illegal dismissal complaint for lack of merit but awarded indemnity for the violation of due process. The NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter's decision, and the Court of Appeals (CA) subsequently dismissed Ogalisco's petition for certiorari, upholding the findings of substantial evidence proving the illicit affair and finding no grave abuse of discretion in the lower tribunals' rulings. The Petition: Petitioner Danilo Ogalisco filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. He primarily argued that the CA committed a grave abuse of discretion in declaring that he was afforded due process. He also contended, in passing, that the charge of illicit relationship was not adequately proven. The petition seeks to reverse the CA's affirmation of his dismissal and the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
Issue(s)
Whether the dismissal of the petitioner was valid. Whether the petitioner was afforded due process. Whether the indemnity award for violation of due process should be modified.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The June 21, 2004 Decision of the CA is affirmed, with the modification that the indemnity award for violation of statutory due process is increased from P17,460 to P30,000.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the dismissal: The Court held that the petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court only allows for questions of law, and the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The factual findings of the labor arbiter, NLRC, and CA, when supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and finality. In this case, the labor arbiter, NLRC, and CA unanimously found that the petitioner was validly dismissed. Substantial evidence on record convincingly showed the extra-marital affair of the petitioner with his co-teacher, Mrs. Hitalia, making his termination valid and legal under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The petitioner failed to show any extraordinary circumstance that would warrant disturbing these concurrent factual findings. On whether the petitioner was afforded due process: The Court noted that this issue was already addressed by the labor arbiter, who ruled that respondent Holy Trinity College failed to afford due process and ordered the payment of P17,460 as indemnity. The NLRC, in its decision, opined that the alleged violation of due process was not supported by evidence, finding that ample opportunity was granted to the petitioner. However, due to the school's failure to appeal the labor arbiter's decision, the NLRC was "procedurally impotent" to delete the indemnity award. The CA reached a similar conclusion, finding no breach of due process rights. Nevertheless, with the dismissal of the petition for certiorari, the labor arbiter's award of indemnity, as affirmed by the NLRC, was effectively upheld by the CA because the respondent school did not seek to have the indemnity award cancelled. On the modification of the indemnity award: The Court, in light of the recent jurisprudential development in Agabon v. NLRC, held that the proper indemnity for the violation of an employee's right to statutory due process is nominal damages in the amount of P30,000. Therefore, the Court deemed it proper to modify the indemnity award from P17,460 to P30,000 in favor of the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
While the Court affirmed the validity of the dismissal based on substantial evidence of immorality, it modified the indemnity award for violation of statutory due process from P17,460 to P30,000, applying the ruling in Agabon v. NLRC.