Union v. Adamson University
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Adamson University (Adamson) received an administrative complaint against Orestes Delos Reyes (Delos Reyes), a professor and president of the Adamson University Faculty and Employees Union (Union). The complaint, filed by Josephine Esplago on behalf of her daughter, Paula Mae Perlas (Paula Mae), a minor student, alleged that Delos Reyes violated the University Code of Conduct and Republic Act No. 7610 for abusing Paula Mae. Josephine claimed that Delos Reyes exclaimed "anak ng puta" upon encountering Paula Mae at a doorway, causing her emotional trauma. Procedural History: An Ad Hoc Investigating and Hearing Committee was formed. Delos Reyes was issued a show cause memorandum and submitted a written explanation, denying the accusations and filing a counter-complaint against Paula Mae. The cases were consolidated, and a hearing was held. Delos Reyes was subsequently issued a Notice of Dismissal, which was later denied on reconsideration. Delos Reyes filed a Notice of Strike, but the parties agreed to voluntary arbitration. The Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators ruled that Delos Reyes was validly dismissed, citing his failure to exhibit conduct worthy of emulation and deeming his utterance as grave depravity, weighing against him previous complaints of unprofessional behavior. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Delos Reyes was accorded procedural due process and was guilty of gross misconduct, considering Paula Mae's minority and circumstances. The Court of Appeals also ruled that Adamson was not liable for unfair labor practice. Delos Reyes filed a Rule 45 Petition with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Delos Reyes argued that he was treated with disparity compared to other employees, that the complaint was hastily acted upon, and that the Ad Hoc Committee was biased. He denied uttering the expletive "unjustifiably, angrily" and pointed to inconsistencies in Paula Mae's testimony. He contended that the phrase itself was not defamatory or constitutive of gross misconduct and that dismissal was too harsh a penalty. He also claimed his dismissal constituted unfair labor practice, motivated by his union activities against the school's K-12 policies.
Issue(s)
Whether or not petitioner Orestes Delos Reyes was validly dismissed from employment. Whether or not his dismissal constitutes unfair labor practice.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the Petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution, holding that Orestes Delos Reyes was validly dismissed from employment and that his dismissal did not constitute unfair labor practice.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of dismissal: The Court reiterated that it is not a trier of facts in a Rule 45 petition and accords weight to the findings of lower tribunals when supported by evidence. Both the Court of Appeals and the Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators found that Delos Reyes exclaimed "anak ng puta" upon encountering Paula Mae. While the initial utterance might be considered an expression of annoyance or exasperation rather than serious misconduct, Delos Reyes's subsequent actions aggravated the offense. These included denying the act, refusing to apologize, filing a counter-complaint against a minor student, and refusing to sign notices holding him accountable. These actions demonstrated willful intent, negated professionalism, and contradicted a professor's responsibility to prioritize students' interests and respect the institution. The Court also considered previous complaints of verbal abuse and unprofessional behavior, including shouting and displaying a "dirty finger" at a superior, and threatening a colleague, which collectively demonstrated a pattern of pugnacious character and ill-mannered conduct, justifying dismissal under the principle of totality of infractions. The Court emphasized that longer service entails greater responsibility for compliance with workplace rules and that an employee whose behavior is inimical to the employer's interests can be dismissed as a measure of self-protection. On unfair labor practice: The Court found no evidence that Delos Reyes's dismissal constituted unfair labor practice. The dismissal was based on his personal acts of misconduct and not on his union activities or the right to self-organization. The Court noted that the proceedings were not shown to be hasty or biased, and that being a union president does not grant immunity from liability for misconduct. The Court also found that the paid advertisement by Adamson was a legitimate exercise of management prerogative to clarify the reasons for dismissal and counter misleading information, done in good faith and not out of malice or spite. The Court reiterated that employers are free to regulate employment aspects based on their discretion, provided it is done in good faith and not to defeat employees' rights.
Main Doctrine
While the utterance of an expletive in the spur of the moment may not be grave misconduct per se, the subsequent acts of refusing to acknowledge the mistake, filing a counter-complaint, and attempting to cause further distress to a minor student can aggravate the misconduct and constitute just cause for dismissal. Furthermore, an employee's position as a union president does not grant immunity from liability for acts of misconduct.