GARCIANO vs COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 96126 | August 10, 1992
FACTS
Garciano (petitioner) was a teacher in the Immaculate Concepcion (ICI) Institute in the Island of
Camotes. On January 13, 1982, or before the school year ended, she applied for an indefinite leave
of absence because her daughter was taking her to Austria where her daughter was. The application
was recommended for approval by the school principal, and approved by the President of the
school's Board of Directors.
On June 1, 1982, the school principal addressed a letter to the petitioner through her husband, (for
she was still abroad), informing her of the decision of Fr. Joseph Wiertz, the school's founder,
concurred in by the president of the Parent-Teachers Association and the school faculty, to
terminate her services as a member of the teaching staff because of: (1) the absence of any written
contract of employment between her and the school due to her refusal to sign one; and (2) the
difficulty of getting a substitute for her on a temporary basis as no one would accept the position
without a written contract.
Upon her return from Austria, she received the letter informing her that her services at the ICI had
been terminated. She made inquiries from the school about the matter and, on July 7, 1982, the
members of the Board of Directors of the school, with the exception of Fr. Joseph Wiertz, signed
a letter notifying her that she was "reinstated to report and do your usual duties as Classroom” and
that "any letter or notice of termination received by you before this date has no sanction or authority
by the Board of Directors of this Institution, therefore it is declared null and void."
On July 9, 1982, majority of the members of the Board of Directors resigned their positions from
the Board for the reason that the ICI Faculty, has reacted acidly to the Board's deliberations for the
reinstatement of Mrs. Esteria F. Garciano, thereby questioning the integrity of the Board's decision.
On September 3, 1982, petitioner filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court against
Fr. Wiertz, Emerito Labajo, and some members of the faculty of the school for discrimination and
unjust and illegal dismissal.
MICHAEL VINLUAN’S ULTIMATE DIGEST FOR SUCCESS
The RTC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering the defendants to pay the former moral damages,
exemplary damages, lost earnings for nine years, litigation expenses and attorney's fees. However,
the CA reversed the RTC’s decision, thus absolving the defendants-appellants from any liability
ISSUE
Whether or not defendant-appellants are liable for damages
RULING
No, because the damages petitioner suffered were self-inflicted. The Supreme Court, speaking
through Justice Grino-Aquino, declared that liability for damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of
the Civil Code arises only from unlawful, willful or negligent acts that are contrary to law, or
morals, good customs or public policy. In this case, 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.
Furthermore, the board of directors of the ICI which alone possesses the authority to hire and fire
teachers and other employees of the school, did not dismiss the petitioner. It in fact directed her to
report for work. While the private respondents sent her a letter of termination through her husband,
they admittedly had no authority to do so. The letter of termination sent to her through her husband
by defendants-appellants had no legal effect whatsoever. There was, therefore, no reason why she
did not continue with her teaching in the school.
Based on these reasons, the Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for lack of merit.
MICHAEL VINLUAN’S ULTIMATE DIGEST FOR SUCCESS
