Barba v. Liceo de Cagayan University
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dr. Ma. Mercedes L. Barba was the Dean of the College of Physical Therapy of respondent Liceo de Cagayan University. She was appointed Dean for a three-year term effective July 1, 2002. Due to a drastic decline in enrollees, the university decided to close the College of Physical Therapy. Petitioner was informed that her services as dean would end at the close of the school year and subsequently offered a teaching load as a full-time faculty member in the College of Nursing. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and constructive dismissal, alleging that her transfer to the College of Nursing constituted a demotion. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, finding no constructive dismissal but ordering reinstatement without back wages or separation pay if reinstatement was not feasible. The NLRC reversed this, finding constructive dismissal and awarding backwages and separation pay. The Court of Appeals (CA) initially reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision, holding petitioner was an employee and not a corporate officer. However, in an Amended Decision, the CA reversed itself, ruling that the position of College Dean is a corporate office, divesting labor tribunals of jurisdiction. The CA set aside the NLRC and Labor Arbiter's resolutions. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's Amended Decision. She argued that the CA erred in ruling she was a corporate officer and that labor tribunals lacked jurisdiction. She also contended that respondent was estopped from raising the jurisdiction issue and that respondent committed forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner was a corporate officer and not an employee. Whether the labor tribunals had jurisdiction over petitioner's illegal dismissal case. Whether petitioner was constructively dismissed or had abandoned her work. Whether respondent was guilty of forum shopping.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the CA's Amended Decision and Resolution, and reinstated the CA's earlier Decision. The Court held that petitioner was an employee, not a corporate officer, and thus the labor tribunals had jurisdiction. The Court also found that petitioner was not constructively dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioner was an employee or a corporate officer: The Court found that the CA's initial ruling that petitioner was an employee was more in accord with law and jurisprudence. Corporate officers are those elected or appointed by the directors or stockholders and are either enumerated in the Corporation Code or the corporation's by-laws. The Court examined respondent's by-laws and found that a College Dean was not among the explicitly listed corporate officers. While the by-laws provided for a "College Director" and "heads of departments" as appointive officials whose appointments were determined by the Board of Directors, the position of Dean was not equated to these. The Court noted that the by-laws authorized only one College Director, whereas numerous Deans were appointed, and that Deans were appointed by the President, not directly by the Board. The appointment letter itself stated that petitioner's position was subject to the Labor Code, not the Corporation Code. Therefore, petitioner was an employee. On the issue of jurisdiction of labor tribunals: Since petitioner was determined to be an employee, her complaint for illegal/constructive dismissal fell within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, as provided by Article 217 of the Labor Code. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the CA's earlier pronouncement that respondent was estopped from belatedly raising the issue of lack of jurisdiction because it had actively participated in the proceedings before the labor tribunals without raising such objection until its Supplemental Petition before the CA. This active participation, including filing position papers, precluded respondent from later assailing the jurisdiction of those tribunals. On the issue of constructive dismissal: The Court found that petitioner was not constructively dismissed. Her appointment as Dean was for a fixed term of three years, subject to revocation for valid cause. The closure of the College of Physical Therapy due to a drastic decrease in enrollees was a valid ground for the revocation of her deanship. Her subsequent assignment to teach in the College of Nursing was considered a valid transfer, not a demotion, as it was related to her scholarship studies and was intended to accommodate her following the college's closure, considering she still had two years left under her scholarship contract. The Court cited the practice in educational institutions of having fixed-term contracts for administrative positions, including deans, for purposes of rotation. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court ruled that respondent was not guilty of forum shopping. While there was an identity of parties, the causes of action and reliefs sought in the present case (constructive dismissal) and the civil case pending before the RTC (breach of contract) were different. Therefore, any judgment in one case would not amount to res judicata in the other.
Main Doctrine
The position of a College Dean in a university, whose appointment is approved by the Board of Directors but is not explicitly mentioned in the By-Laws as a corporate office, is that of an employee, not a corporate officer. Consequently, labor tribunals have jurisdiction over termination disputes involving such positions. Furthermore, active participation in labor proceedings estops a party from belatedly assailing the jurisdiction of said tribunals.