G.R. No. L-26059 October 31, 1969
DOMINADOR S. JAMILANO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND PAGBILAO ACADEMY, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Dominador S. Jamilano was a teacher under a fixed-period contract (June 1, 1955 to March 31, 1956) with respondent Pagbilao Academy. On January 11, 1956, during a meeting to select a class muse, a disagreement arose between Jamilano and a co-teacher, Catalina Luna. Luna called Jamilano “yabang” (boastful). Feeling insulted, Jamilano absented himself from his classes for the next two days to consult a lawyer in Manila. On January 13, Luna attempted to apologize, but Jamilano referred her to his lawyer. On January 17, Jamilano filed a criminal complaint for serious oral defamation against Luna. The following day, the Academy’s Board of Trustees convened, investigated the incident, and passed a resolution suspending Jamilano without pay for the remainder of the school year based on charges including grave misconduct for not first reporting to the Board, unauthorized absence, violation of professional ethics, and demanding P500.00 for an amicable settlement. Jamilano filed an administrative complaint with the Bureau of Private Schools, which cleared him of all charges and directed the Academy to pay his back salaries. He also filed a civil case for damages in the Court of First Instance (CFI), which ruled in his favor, finding the suspension without just cause and awarding him salary, compensatory and moral damages, and attorney’s fees. Meanwhile, the criminal case against Luna reached the Court of Appeals, which acquitted her, finding the word “yabang” non-defamatory in context and remarking that Jamilano’s recourse to court was “not justified at all.” The Academy moved for a new trial in the civil case based on this decision, but the CFI denied it. The Academy appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the CFI, ruling that Jamilano’s actions rendered him an undesirable teacher and that the Academy properly exercised its power of dismissal/suspension. Jamilano appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the suspension of petitioner Jamilano by respondent Pagbilao Academy during the effectivity of his fixed-period contract was for a just cause.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the CFI decision with modifications. The Court held that Jamilano’s suspension was not justified. His filing of the criminal case was done in good faith, as lower courts had initially found the charge meritorious, and he was not required by Academy regulations to first report the personal matter to the Board. His refusal to settle was not absolute, as he referred Luna to his lawyer. His remark about the Board was an expression of pique, not deliberate denigration. The administrative authorities had already cleared him. The employer’s power to discipline is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulation and the constitutional protection of labor. However, the Court found Jamilano not blameless for unjustifiably abandoning his classes for two days, recklessly disregarding his students’ interests. Consequently, he was entitled only to recover his salary for the suspension period (P360.00 plus interest) and a reasonable amount for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses (P1,000.00). Moral and compensatory damages were disallowed.