In Ma. Salvacion G. Aquino vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court addressed the legality of a professor’s dismissal following her unapproved leave and subsequent claim of illegal termination. The Court ruled that because the professor did not follow proper procedures for requesting a leave, and because there was an offer of early retirement, there was no illegal dismissal. This decision clarifies the obligations of employees to adhere to institutional policies and the conditions under which early retirement can be considered valid, rather than constructive dismissal.

Classroom Conflict: Can Unapproved Leave Lead to Legal Dismissal?

Ma. Salvacion G. Aquino, a professor at St. Paul’s College of Manila, faced disciplinary action after taking unapproved leave to travel abroad, which disrupted her teaching schedule. Aquino claimed she had informally sought approval through her department head and the registrar. However, the college maintained that she did not secure the required authorization from the college dean and president. Subsequently, the college initiated administrative proceedings against her, citing several violations of the faculty manual, including abandonment of employment and insubordination.

During the proceedings, Aquino expressed interest in early retirement. The college started processing her retirement benefits, but before the process concluded, Aquino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming she had been constructively dismissed rather than voluntarily retired. The Labor Arbiter initially sided with Aquino, but this decision was overturned by the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). The Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s decision, leading Aquino to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. The central legal question was whether St. Paul’s College illegally dismissed Aquino, or whether her actions constituted a valid offer of early retirement.

The Supreme Court addressed whether the professor’s petition under Rule 65, a special civil action for certiorari, was the correct procedural approach. Certiorari is typically reserved for cases where a lower court or tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and where no other adequate remedy, such as an appeal, is available. The Court emphasized that Aquino should have filed a petition for review under Rule 45 instead of certiorari, given that her complaint concerned errors in the lower courts’ evaluation of facts rather than jurisdictional issues. This procedural misstep was compounded by Aquino’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, depriving that court of the opportunity to correct any perceived errors.

The Supreme Court further scrutinized the substance of Aquino’s claims. According to the court, the issues she raised were fundamentally questions of fact, not law. The court cannot re-evaluate the factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion. Grave abuse of discretion implies an arbitrary or despotic exercise of power, amounting to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law. The Supreme Court found no such abuse in the NLRC’s handling of the case. The NLRC’s factual findings were well-supported by the evidence, and the college had followed appropriate procedures in addressing Aquino’s violations of institutional policy.

The Court examined whether the college had forced the early retirement, thus amounting to a constructive dismissal. The court noted that Aquino had verbally expressed her desire to retire early and requested that the college forgo an administrative hearing, thus proposing an early retirement. The college had acted on this request, ceasing to include her name in the payroll, but before formalizing the arrangement through a written request from Aquino as requested by the college, Aquino changed her mind and contested it as illegal dismissal. This shift suggested a voluntary decision, rather than coercion from the college. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer renders continued employment impossible, effectively forcing an employee to resign. The court found no evidence of such coercion in Aquino’s case.

The ruling underscores the necessity for employees to strictly comply with institutional policies and procedures. The decision also clarifies that for an early retirement to be valid, both parties—employer and employee—must unequivocally agree to its terms. It highlighted the difference between voluntary retirement and constructive dismissal. The Court was unconvinced by Aquino’s claims that her actions were misinterpreted, and therefore affirmed the earlier decision.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Ma. Salvacion G. Aquino was illegally dismissed by St. Paul’s College or if her departure constituted a voluntary offer to early retirement, and if the CA committed grave abuse of discretion.
What is constructive dismissal?	Constructive dismissal happens when an employer makes working conditions so unbearable that the employee is forced to resign. The employee’s resignation is not truly voluntary, but is impelled by the employer’s actions.
Why was Aquino’s petition for certiorari denied?	The Supreme Court denied the petition because Aquino should have filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, not Rule 65. Also, she failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals prior to her petition.
What evidence did the NLRC rely on to decide against Aquino?	The NLRC relied on evidence that Aquino had taken unapproved leave, that the school policy stated leave had to be approved by the college dean/president, and that she verbally proposed an early retirement to which the school administration started to act on.
Can a college professor take leave without formal approval?	The ruling emphasizes the importance of complying with institutional policies. Taking leave without proper approval can lead to disciplinary actions, including dismissal.
Is the employer liable in a request for early retirement?	It depends; In the case, the college began processing benefits, thus assuming it was ok, until she contested. So yes, and the earlier decision held that in this case it was not an illegal dismissal.
What is grave abuse of discretion?	Grave abuse of discretion means acting arbitrarily or capriciously in exercising judgment, indicating a lack of due consideration. The abuse must be so serious that it amounts to a clear evasion of duty or a virtual refusal to perform it.
What are the implications of this case for educational institutions?	The case reinforces the right of educational institutions to enforce their policies regarding faculty absences. Institutions can rely on policies if it is shown that those policies have been communicated effectively.

This case demonstrates the importance of due process and adherence to institutional policies within employment relationships. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that employees must follow proper procedures when seeking leave or changes to their employment conditions. The case also illustrates how an offer of early retirement can be construed, and underscores the necessity of clear communication between employers and employees to avoid disputes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MA. SALVACION G. AQUINO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 149404, September 15, 2006