CASE 65 – PFR (Art 19-21)

GR No. 96126 August 10, 1992

ESTERIA F. GARCIANO vs COURT OF APPEALS, EMERITO LABAJO, LUNISITA MARODA, LALIANA

DIONES, CANONISA PANINSORO, DIONISIO ROSAL, REMEDIOS GALUSO, FLORDELUNA PETALCORIN,
MELCHIZEDECH LOON, NORBERTA MARODA, JOSEPH WIERTZ

FACTS:

Esteria Garciano was hired to teach during the 1981-82 school year in the Immaculate Concepcion
Institute in the Island of Camotes. Before the school year ended, she applied for an indefinite LOA because
her daughter was taking her to Austria. The application was recommended for approval by the school
principal, Emerito O. Labajo, and approved by the President of the school's Board of Directors.

On June 1, 1982, Emerito Labajo addressed a letter to the Garciano, stating that school founder,
Fr. Joseph Wiertz, the president of the PTA and the school faculty, have decided to terminate her services
due to: (b) the difficulty of getting a substitute for her on a temporary basis as no one would accept the
position without a written contract.

Upon Garciano’s arrival from Austria, and after several inquiries about the matter, the Board of
Directors without the consent of the school founder signed a letter, reinstating Garciano to her former
position.

The president, vice president, secretary, and three members of the Board of Directors resigned
from their positions "for the reason that the ICI Faculty, has reacted acidly to the Board's deliberations for
the reinstatement of Garciano.

A complaint for damages was filed in the RTC-Cebu against Fr. Wiertz, Emerito Labajo, and some
members of the faculty of the school for discrimination and unjust and illegal dismissal.

After trial, the lower court ruled in favor of Garciano, ordering Wiertz and Co. to pay 200,000 as
moral damages, 50,000 exemplary damages, 32,400 as lost earnings for 9 years and 10,000 as litigation
and attorney’s fees.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the ruling of the lower court, dismissing the complaint
and absolving Wiertz and Co. Following the denial of their motion for reconsideration, Garciano seeks
redress in the High Court.

ISSUES:

Did the CA err in absolving Wiertz and Co. from liability by faulting Esteria Garciano for her failure
to report back to work? Should they be held liable for damages?

RULING:

The High Court ruled in the negative. It held that the board of directors of the Immaculate
Concepcion Institute, which possesses the authority to hire and fire teachers and other employees of the
school, did not dismiss the Garciano, but merely directed her to report for work.
 While the Wiertz and Co. sent her a letter of termination through her husband, as discovered by
the CA, Wiertz and Co. were aware of their lack of authority to do so. The letter of termination they sent
to Garciano through her husband had no legal effect, and did not prevent her from reporting for work.
There was no reason why she could not continue with her teaching in the school.

No evidence had been presented to show that defendants-appellants prevented her from
reporting for work. An acidic reaction made by Wiertz and Co. can be seen as nothing more than a reaction
to what they perceived as an affront to their collective prestige.

It would appear, therefore, that plaintiff-appellee voluntarily desisted from her teaching job in
the school and has no right to recover damages from defendants-appellants.

They actually did nothing to physically prevent her from reassuming her post, as ordered by the
school's Board of Directors With regard to damages, liability 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.

Given that Garciano's discontinuance from teaching was her own choice, whatever loss she may
have incurred in the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted. Volenti non fit injuria. With respect to
Garciano's claim for moral damages, since the right to recover them under Article 21 is based on equity,
he who comes to court to demand equity must come with clean hands. In this case, Garciano is not
without fault. Her indefinite leave of absence, followed by her failure to report in time for the opening of
classes, as well as her refusal to sign a written contract of employment and her ignorance of the Board’s
order to return to work are reflections of her fault.