8/10/2019 Immaculate vs Nlrc

1/2

University of the Immaculate Concepcion vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 181146, January 26, 2011

FACTS

Teodora C. Axalan is a regular faculty member holding the position of AssociateProfessor II in the University of the Immaculate Conception in Davao. She wasdismissed due to 2 instances wherein she was allegedly absent without leave, attendingseminars in Quezon City and Baguio City, respectively.

On the first instance, Axalan claimed that she held online classes. She wasconvinced that she cannot be considered absent and opted not to write the letter ofapology requested of her by the University President to avoid any administrative charge.

On the second instance, Axalan claimed that she asked permission from the VP forAcademics who denied giving the same.

After conducting hearings and receiving evidence, the ad hoc grievancecommittee found Axalan to have incurred AWOL on both instances and recommendedthat Axalanbe suspended without pay for six months on each AWOL charge. Theuniversity president approved the committees recommendation and wrote Axalan aletter informing her of her absences and of her total penalty of one-year suspensionwithout pay for both AWOL charges effective immediately.

ISSUE

Whether or not there was constructive dismissal.

HELD

NO, there was no constructive dismissal, Axalan having been validly validlysuspended for cause and in accord with procedural due process.

Constructive dismissal occurs when there iscessation of workbecausecontinued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely as when thereis a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, ordisdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee leaving the latter with noother option but to quit.

In this case however, there was no cessation of employment relations betweenthe parties. It isunrefutedthatAxalanpromptly resumed teaching at the university rightafter the expiration of the suspension period. In other words,Axalannever quit.Hence,Axalancannot claim that she was left with no choice but to quit, a crucial

8/10/2019 Immaculate vs Nlrc

2/2

element in a finding of constructive dismissal. Thus,Axalancannot be deemed to havebeen constructively dismissed.

Significantly, at the time the Labor Arbiter rendered his Decision on 11 October2004,Axalanhad already returned to her teaching job at the university on 1 October

2004. The Labor Arbiters Decision ordering the reinstatement of

Axalan, who at thetime had already returned to work, is thus absurd.

There being no constructive dismissal, there is no legal basis for the LaborArbiters order of reinstatement as well as payment ofbackwages, salary differentials,damages, and attorneys fees.Thus, the third issue raised in the petition is now moot.

The Court recognizes the right of employers to discipline its employees forserious violations of company rules after affording the latter due process and if theevidence warrants. The university, after affordingAxalandue process and finding herguilty of incurring AWOL on two separate occasions, acted well within the bounds of

labor laws in imposing the penalty of six-

month suspension without pay for eachincidence of AWOL.

As a learning institution, the university cannot be expected to take lightlyabsences without official leave among its employees, more so among its facultymembers even if they happen to be union officers. To do so would send the wrongsignal to thestudentryand the rest of its teaching staff that irresponsibility is widelytolerated in the academe.

The law protects both the welfare of employees and the prerogatives ofmanagement.Courts will not interfere with prerogatives of management on thediscipline of employees, as long as they do not violate labor laws, collective bargainingagreements if any, and general principles of fairness and justice.