Article 20 Case Digest: Garciano V. Court of Appeals et. al.

 ESTERIA F. GARCIANO, PETITIONER VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EMERITO LABAJO, DIONISIO ROSAL, REMEDIOS GALUSO, FLORDELUNA PETALCORIN, MELCHIZEDECH LOON, NORBERTA MARODA,  AND JOSEPH WIERTZ, RESPONDENTS

G.R. NO. 96126, AUGUST 10, 1992

FACTS:

    The petitioner was hired to teach during the 1981-82 school year in the Immaculate Conception Institute in the island of Camotes. Before the school year ended, she filed an indefinite leave of absence because her daughter is taking abroad. The application was approved by the president of the school's board of directors. 

    On June 1, 1982, Emerito Labajo addressed a letter to the petitioner through her husband that the founder of the school, Fr. Joseph Wiertz has terminated her services as part of the teaching staff. The members of the board of director's of the school, with the exception of Fr. Joseph Wiertz, signed a letter reinstating the petitioner's position in the teaching staff. The petitioner declined.

    The petitioner filed a complaint for damages against Fr. Wiertz, Emerito Labajo, and some members of the faculty of the school for discrimination and unjust and illegal dismissal. The lower court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting her awards for moral damages, exemplary damages, lost earnings, and litigation expenses and attorney's fees. 

    The private respondents appealed to the court of the appeals. The court of appeals reversed the lower courts ruling, dismissing the complaint and absolving any liability to the respondents. 

ISSUES:

    Whether or not the respondents are civilly liable for injuries incurred against the petitioner. 

RULING:

    No. The Court of Appeals was correct in finding that petitioner's discontinuance from teaching was her own choice. While the respondents admittedly wanted her service terminated, they actually did nothing to physically prevent her from reassuming her post, as ordered by the school's Board of Directors. That the school principal and Fr. Wiertz disagreed with the Board's decision to retain her, and some teachers allegedly threatened to resign en masse, even if true, did not make them liable to her for damages. They were simply exercising their right of free speech or their right to dissent from the Board's decision. Their acts were not contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy. They did not "illegally dismiss" her for the Board's decision to retain her prevailed. She was ordered to report for work on July 5, 1982, but she did not comply with that order. Consequently, whatever loss she may have incurred in the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted.

    With respect to petitioner's claim for moral damages, the right to recover them under Article 21 is based on equity, and he who comes to court to demand equity, must come with clean hands. Article 21 should be construed as granting the right to recover damages to injured persons who are not themselves at fault. Moral damages are recoverable only if the case falls under Article 2219 in relation to Article 21. In the case at bar, petitioners is not without fault. Firstly, she went on an indefinite leave of absence and failed to report back in time for the regular opening of classes. Secondly, for reasons known to herself alone, she refused to sign a written contract of employment. Lastly, she ignored the Board of Directors' order for her to report for duty on July 5, 1982.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Article 91 - Family Code and Case: Nobleza Vs. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038

Article 91           Unless otherwise provided in this chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.           The law provides for two kinds of properties that shall form part of the absolute community of properties; namely, (1) All properties owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage;           (2) All properties acquired after the celebration of the marriage.           The law provides, however, that even if the parties are governed by the absolute community, they may agree that some properties be exempted form its coverage. If that is so, then, the ante-nuptial agreement embodied in their law further provides that there are proper...
Read more

Article 20 Case Digest: Sps. Quisumbing Vs. Meralco

SPOUSES ANTONIO AND LORNA QUISUMBING, PETITIONER VS. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY (MERALCO), RESPONDENT G.R. NO. 142943, APRIL 3, 2002 FACTS:     On March 3, 1995, the respondents took a routine check of all single phased meters in Green Meadows avenue. The house owned by the petitioners was one of the houses that was inspected. The petitioners was not around at the of the inspection, the petitioners asked permission from the petitioners through their secretary. The secretary witnessed the inspection. Upon inspection, the respondents discovered that the terminal seal of the meter was missing, the meter cover seal was deformed, the meter dials of the meter was mis-aligned and there were scratches on the meter base plate. This was a clear sign that the meter has been tampered. The petitioners denied liability for the tampering. The respondent then, temporarily disconnected the electric services of the petitioners until they pay the amount of P178,875.01 representing the differential ...
Read more

Article 39, Case Digest - Family Code: Wiegel vs. Judge Sempio-Diy

  LILIA OLIVA WIEGEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ALICIA V. SEMPIO-DIY (as presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City) and KARL HEINZ WIEGEL, respondents. G.R. No. L-53703 August 19, 1986 PARAS, J.: Facts:           This a petition for certiorari for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the petitioner, Lilia Wiegel and respondent, Karl Heinz Wiegel, by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan City.           Herein respondent claims that his marriage to the petitioner is void because of an existing marriage prior to their marriage. The petitioner contends that her first marriage was void because they forced to enter in the said marriage. Moreover, the petitioner assails that her first husband had a prior existing marriage, therefore, making the marriage void.           Respondent jud...
Read more