26/08/2016

GatbontonvsNLRC:146779:January23,2006:J.AustriaMartinez:FirstDivision:Decision

FIRSTDIVISION

RENATOS.GATBONTON,G.R.NO.146779
Petitioner,
Present:

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN,C.J.,(Chairman)
YNARESSANTIAGO,
versusAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
CALLEJO,SR.,and
NAZARIO,JJ.

NATIONALLABORRELATIONS
COMMISSION,MAPUAINSTITUTE
OFTECHNOLOGYandJOSE
CALDERON,Promulgated:
Respondents.January23,2006
xx

DECISION

AUSTRIAMARTINEZ,J.:

BeforetheCourtisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtwhich
[1]
seeks to set aside the Decision dated November 10, 2000 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CAG.R. SP No. 57470, affirming the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) and the CA Resolution dated January 16, 2001, denying the motion for
[2]
reconsideration.

Petitioner Renato S. Gatbonton is an associate professor of respondent Mapua Institute of

Technology (MIT), Faculty of Civil Engineering. Some time in November 1998, a civil
engineering student of respondent MIT filed a lettercomplaint against petitioner for
unfair/unjust grading system, sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming of an academician.
Pending investigation of the complaint, respondent MIT, through its Committee on Decorum
andInvestigationplacedpetitionerundera30daypreventivesuspensioneffectiveJanuary11,
1999.Thecommitteebelievedthatpetitionerscontinuedstayduringtheinvestigationaffectshis
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/146779.htm

1/8

26/08/2016

GatbontonvsNLRC:146779:January23,2006:J.AustriaMartinez:FirstDivision:Decision

performanceasafacultymember,aswellasthestudentslearningandthatthesuspensionwill
allowpetitionertopreparehimselffortheinvestigationandwillpreventhisinfluencestoother
[3]
membersofthecommunity.

Thus,petitionerfiledwiththeNLRCacomplaintforillegalsuspension,damagesandattorneys
[4]
fees, docketedasNLRCNCRCaseNo.010038899.

Petitioner questioned the validity of the administrative proceedings with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila in a petition for certiorari but the case was terminated on May 21, 1999
whenthepartiesenteredintoacompromiseagreementwhereinrespondentMITagreedtopublishin
theschoolorgantherulesandregulationsimplementingRepublicActNo.7877 (R.A.No.7877)

or the AntiSexual Harassment Act disregard the previous administrative proceedings and
conductanewaninvestigationonthecharges against petitioner. Petitioner agreed to recognize
thevalidityofthepublishedrules
and regulations, as well as the authority of respondent to investigate, hear and decide the
[5]
administrativecaseagainsthim.

OnJune18,1999,theLaborArbiterrenderedadecision,thedispositiveportionofwhich
reads:

Wherefore, premises considered, the thirty day preventive suspension of complainant is

herebydeclaredtobeillegal.Accordingly,respondentsaredirectedtopayhiswagesduringthe
periodofhispreventivesuspension.

Therestofcomplainantsclaimsaredismissed.

[6]
SOORDERED.

BothrespondentsandpetitionerfiledtheirappealfromtheLaborArbitersDecision,with
petitionerquestioningthedismissalofhisclaimfordamages.InaDecisiondatedSeptember30,
1999, the NLRC granted respondents appeal and set aside the Labor Arbiters decision. His
motionforreconsiderationhavingbeendeniedbytheNLRConDecember13,1999,petitioner
filedaspecialcivilactionforcertiorariwiththeCA.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/146779.htm

2/8

26/08/2016

GatbontonvsNLRC:146779:January23,2006:J.AustriaMartinez:FirstDivision:Decision

OnNovember10,2000,theCApromulgatedtheassaileddecisionaffirmingtheNLRC
decision,thedispositiveportionofwhichreads:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the petition is hereby DENIED DUE

COURSE and ORDERED DISMISSED, and the challenged decision and order of public
respondentNLRCAFFIRMED.

[7]
SOORDERED.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied in its Resolution dated
January16,2001.

Hence,thepresentpetitionbasedonthefollowinggrounds:

THECOURTOFAPPEALSGRAVELYERREDINFINDINGTHATTHENLRCWASNOT
GUILTY OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN RENDERING BOTH THE APPEAL
DECISIONANDTHENLRCRESOLUTION.

THECOURTOFAPPEALS GRAVELY ERRED INAFFIRMING THENLRCSDISMISSAL

[8]
OFPETITIONERSCLAIMFORDAMAGES.

PetitionerfindsfaultintheCAsdecision,arguingthathispreventivesuspensiondoesnotfind
any justification in the Mapua Rules and Regulations considering that at the time of his
preventivesuspensiononJanuary11,1999,theruleshavenotbeenpromulgatedyetasitwas
publishedonlyonFebruary23,1999.Petitioneralsoconteststhelackofawardofdamagesin
[9]
hisfavor.

Thepetitionispartlymeritorious.

Preventive suspension is a disciplinary measure for the protection of the companys

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
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/146779.htm

3/8

26/08/2016

GatbontonvsNLRC:146779:January23,2006:J.AustriaMartinez:FirstDivision:Decision

[10]
employer or of his coworkers.
However, when it is determined that there is no sufficient
basis to justify an employees preventive suspension, the latter is entitled to the payment of
[11]
salariesduringthetimeofpreventivesuspension.
R.A. No. 7877 imposed the duty on educational or training institutions to promulgate
rulesandregulationsinconsultationwithandjointlyapprovedbytheemployeesorstudentsor
trainees, through their duly designated representatives, prescribing the procedures for the
[12]
investigation of sexual harassment cases and the administrative sanctions therefor.
PetitionerspreventivesuspensionwasbasedonrespondentMITsRulesandRegulationsforthe
ImplementionoftheAntiSexualHarassmentActof1995,orR.A.No.7877.RuleII,Section1
oftheMITRulesandRegulationsprovides:

Section1.PreventiveSuspensionofAccusedinSexualHarassmentCases.Anymember
of the educational community may be placed immediately under preventive suspension during
thependencyofthehearingofthechargesofgravesexualharassmentagainsthimiftheevidence
of his guilt is strong and the school head is morally convinced that the continued stay of the
accusedduringtheperiodofinvestigationconstitutesadistractiontothenormaloperationsofthe
institutionorposesariskordangertothelifeorpropertyoftheothermembersoftheeducational
community.

It must be noted however, that respondent published said rules and regulations only on
[13]
February23,1999.InTaadavs.Tuvera,
itwasruledthat:

allstatutes,includingthoseoflocalapplicationandprivatelaws,shallbepublishedasa
conditionfortheireffectivity,whichshallbeginfifteendaysafterpublicationunlessadifferent
effectivityisfixedbythelegislature.

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
regulationsmustalsobepublishediftheirpurposeistoenforceorimplementexistinglaw
pursuantalsotoavaliddelegation.

Interpretativeregulationsandthosemerelyinternalinnature,thatis,regulatingonlythe
personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is
publication required of the socalled letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors
concerningtherulesorguidelinestobefollowedbytheirsubordinatesintheperformanceoftheir
duties.

Weagreethatthepublicationmustbeinfulloritisnopublicationatallsinceitspurpose
istoinformthepublicofthecontentsofthelaws.(Emphasissupplied)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/146779.htm

4/8

26/08/2016

GatbontonvsNLRC:146779:January23,2006:J.AustriaMartinez:FirstDivision:Decision

TheMapuaRulesisoneofthoseissuancesthatshouldbepublishedforitseffectivity,sinceits
[14]
purposeistoenforceandimplementR.A.No.7877,whichisalawofgeneralapplication.
Infact,theMapuaRulesitselfexplicitlyrequiredpublicationoftherulesforitseffectivity,as
providedinSection3,RuleIV(AdministrativeProvisions),whichstatesthat[T]heseRulesand
RegulationstoimplementtheAntiSexualHarassmentActof1995shalltakeeffectfifteen(15)
days after publication by the Committee. Thus, at the time of the imposition of petitioners
preventivesuspensiononJanuary11,1999,theMapuaRuleswerenotyetlegallyeffective,and
thereforethesuspensionhadnolegalbasis.

Moreover,evenassumingthattheMapuaRulesareapplicable,theCourtfindsthatthereisno
sufficientbasistojustifyhispreventivesuspension.UndertheMapuaRules,anaccusedmaybe
placedunderpreventivesuspensionduringpendencyofthehearingunderanyofthefollowing
circumstances:

(a) if the evidence of his guilt is strong and the school head is morally convinced that the
continuedstayoftheaccusedduringtheperiodofinvestigationconstitutesadistractionto
thenormaloperationsoftheinstitutionor

(b) the accused poses a risk or danger to the life or property of the other members of the
educationalcommunity.

In petitioners case, there is no indication that petitioners preventive suspension may be

basedontheforegoingcircumstances.CommitteeResolutionNo.1(Re:PreventiveSuspension
ofEngr.RenatoGatbonton)passedbytheCommitteeonDecorumandInvestigationstatesthe
reasonsforpetitionerspreventivesuspension,towit:

Whereas, the committee believe[s] that the continued stay of the respondent during the
periodofinvestigation,

1. Affects the respondents performance as a faculty member and laboratory head

considering the psychological effects depression and/or emotional stress during
investigation

2.Affectsthestudent[s]learningandothermembersoftheMapuaInstituteofTechnology
community.

Whereas, the committee believe[s] that this preventive suspension will allow the
respondent to prepare himself for the investigation and will prevent his influences to other
[15]
membersofthecommunity.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/146779.htm

5/8

26/08/2016

GatbontonvsNLRC:146779:January23,2006:J.AustriaMartinez:FirstDivision:Decision

Said resolution does not show that evidence of petitioners guilt is strong and that the
school head is morally convinced that petitioners continued stay during the period of
investigation constitutes a distraction to the normal operations of the institution or that
petitionerposesariskordangertothelifeorpropertyoftheothermembersoftheeducational
community.

EvenundertheLaborCode,petitionerspreventivesuspensionfindsnovalidjustification.
AsprovidedinSection8,RuleXXIII,BookVoftheOmnibusRulesImplementingtheLabor
Code:

Sec. 8. Preventive Suspension. The employer may place the worker concerned under
preventivesuspensionifhiscontinuedemploymentposesaseriousthreattothelifeorproperty
oftheemployerorofhiscoworkers.

As previously stated, there is nothing on record which shows that respondent MIT
imposed the preventive suspension on petitioner as his continued employment poses a serious
threat to the life or property of the employer or of his coworkers therefore, his preventive
[16]
suspension is not justified.
Consequently, the payment of wages during his 30day
preventivesuspension,i.e.,fromJanuary11,1999toFebruary10,1999,isinorder.

With regard to petitioners claim for damages, the Court finds the same to be without
basis. While petitioners preventive suspension may have been unjustified, this does not
automatically mean that he is entitled to moral or other damages. In Cocoland Development
[17]
Corp.vs.NLRC,
theCourtruled:

InPrimero vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, this Court held that " an award (of moral
damages)cannotbejustifiedsolelyuponthepremise(otherwisesufficientforredressunderthe
LaborCode)thattheemployerfiredhisemployeewithoutjustcauseordueprocess.Additional
factsmustbepleadedandproventowarrantthegrantofmoraldamagesundertheCivilCode,
these being, to repeat, that the act of dismissal was attended by bad faith or fraud, or was
oppressivetolabor,ordoneinamannercontrarytomorals,goodcustoms,orpublicpolicyand
ofcourse,thatsocialhumiliation,woundedfeelings,graveanxiety,etc.,resultedtherefrom."This
was reiterated in Garcia vs. NLRC, where the Court added that exemplary damages may be
awarded only if the dismissal was shown to have been effected in a wanton, oppressive or
malevolentmanner.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/146779.htm

6/8

26/08/2016

GatbontonvsNLRC:146779:January23,2006:J.AustriaMartinez:FirstDivision:Decision

Thistheprivaterespondentfailedtodo.Becausenoevidencewasadducedtoshowthat
petitioner company acted in bad faith or in a wanton or fraudulent manner in dismissing the
private respondent, the labor arbiter did not award any moral and exemplary damages in his
decision.RespondentNLRCthereforehadnofactualorlegalbasistoawardsuchdamagesinthe
exerciseofitsappellatejurisdiction.

TherecordsofthiscasearebereftofanyevidenceshowingthatrespondentMITactedinbad
faithorinawantonorfraudulentmannerinpreventivelysuspendingpetitioner,thus,theLabor
Arbiterwascorrectinnotawardinganydamagesinfavorofpetitioner.

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated

November10,2000andResolutiondatedJanuary16,2001oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.
SP No. 57470 as well as the NLRC Decision dated September 30, 1999 together with its
ResolutiondatedDecember13,1999,areherebySETASIDEandtheLaborArbitersDecision
datedJune18,1999isREINSTATED.

SOORDERED.

MA.ALICIAAUSTRIAMARTINEZ
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice
Chairman

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGOROMEOJ.CALLEJO,SR.

AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice

CERTIFICATION

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/146779.htm

7/8

26/08/2016

GatbontonvsNLRC:146779:January23,2006:J.AustriaMartinez:FirstDivision:Decision

PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,itisherebycertifiedthattheconclusions
intheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

ARTEMIOV.PANGANIBAN
ChiefJustice

[1]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseL.Sabio,Jr.andconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesBuenaventuraJ.Guerrero(ret.)andEliezerR.
DelosSantos.
[2]
CARollo,pp.223224.
[3]
Rollo,p.75.
[4]
Id.,p.49.
[5]
Id.,p.159.
[6]
Id.,p.113.
[7]
CArollo,p.202.
[8]
Rollo,pp.1718.
[9]
Id.,pp.1821.
[10]
PhilippineAirlines,Inc.vs.NLRC,354Phil.37,43(1998).
[11]
Valiaovs.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.146621,July30,2004,435SCRA543,554.
[12]
Section4(a),R.A.No.7877.
[13]
G.R.No.L63915,December29,1986,230Phil.528,535536(1986).
[14]
Pilipinas Kao, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105014, December 18, 2001, 423 Phil. 834, 860 (2001) Philippine
InternationalTradingCorp.vs.Angeles,G.R.No.108461,October21,1996,331Phil.723,750751(1996).
[15]
Rollo,pp.7475.
[16]
Supra,Valiaocase.
[17]
G.R.No.98458,July17,1996,328Phil.351,365366(1996).

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/jan2006/146779.htm

8/8