Esteria Garciano was a teacher hired to teach during the 1981-1982 school year. She applied for an indefinite leave of absence to go to Austria with her daughter. While abroad, she received a letter terminating her position. When she returned, the school's Board of Directors reinstated her and ordered her to return to work. However, she did not report to work and instead filed a complaint for damages against school officials. The trial court ruled in her favor but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the defendants not liable. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining Garciano was not entitled to damages as the Board did not dismiss her and she failed to comply with their order to return to work.
Esteria Garciano was a teacher hired to teach during the 1981-1982 school year. She applied for an indefinite leave of absence to go to Austria with her daughter. While abroad, she received a letter terminating her position. When she returned, the school's Board of Directors reinstated her and ordered her to return to work. However, she did not report to work and instead filed a complaint for damages against school officials. The trial court ruled in her favor but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the defendants not liable. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining Garciano was not entitled to damages as the Board did not dismiss her and she failed to comply with their order to return to work.
Esteria Garciano was a teacher hired to teach during the 1981-1982 school year. She applied for an indefinite leave of absence to go to Austria with her daughter. While abroad, she received a letter terminating her position. When she returned, the school's Board of Directors reinstated her and ordered her to return to work. However, she did not report to work and instead filed a complaint for damages against school officials. The trial court ruled in her favor but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the defendants not liable. The Supreme Court affirmed, determining Garciano was not entitled to damages as the Board did not dismiss her and she failed to comply with their order to return to work.
As for the moral damages, the right to recover them under Article 21 is based Augusr 20, 1992 | Griño-Aquino, J. | Contrary to Law and Morals (Arts. 20 & 21) 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 PETITIONER: ESTERIA F. GARCIANO RESPONDENTS: THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EMERITO LABAJO, damages to injured persons who are not themselves at fault. Moral damages LUNISITA MARODA, LALIANA DIONES, CANONISA PANINSORO, are recoverable only if the case falls under Article 2219 in relation to Article 21. DIONISIO ROSAL, REMEDIOS GALUSO, FLORDELUNA PETALCORIN, In the case at bar, petitioner is not without fault. As for the exemplary damages, MELCHIZEDECH LOON, NORBERTA MARODA and JOSEPH WIERTZ it was not justified for she is not entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages. SUMMARY: Esteria Garciano is a teacher at the Immaculate Concepcion Institute. She was hired to teach during 1981-82. Before the school year ended, she applied for an indefinite leave of absence because her daughter will take her to Austria. Her application, on the recommendation of the school principal, was FACTS: approved by the President of the school’s Board of Directors. While she was still 1. Petitioner Esteria Garciano was hired to teach during the 1981-82 school abroad, the school principal addressed a letter to her through her huaband that year in the Immaculate Concepcion Institute in the Island of Camotes. she had been terminated. Upon her arrival, she received the letter and she then 2. On January 13, 1982, or before the school year ended, she applied for an inquired about her termination. The Board of Directors reinstated her and indefinite leave of absence because her daughter was taking her to Austria ordered her to report back for work. It also said that the letter of termination sent where her daughter was employed. The application was recommended for before had no authority by the BoD and thus null and void. approval by the school principal, Emerito O. Labajo, and approved by the President of the school's Board of Directors. Some members of the Board of Directors resigned because the faculty reacted 3. While Garciano was still abroad, the school principal addressed a letter to acidly to Garciano’s reinstatement. Garciano also did not report for work despite her through her husband, informing her of the decision of Fr. Joseph Wiertz, the reinstatement and order of the BoD. Instaed, she filed a complaint for the school's founder, concurred in by the president of the Parent-Teachers damages against the school principal, the President, and some faculty members. Association and the school faculty, to terminate her services as a member The trial court ruled in her favor, but the CA reversed this and absolved the of the teaching staff. The letter states that it is difficult to get a substitute defendants from liability. on a temporary basis as no one would accept the position without a written The ISSUE is whether or not Garciano is entitled to damages — NO. The acts of contract. Garciano refused to sign a written contract before. the respondents were not contrary to law, morals, good customs or public policy. 4. When she returned from Austria in the later part of June 1982, she received the letter informing her of her termination. She inquired about the matter. The BoD did not dismiss her. It even reinstated her and directed her to report for 5. On on July 7, 1982, the members of the Board of Directors of the school, work. While the respondents disagreed with the Board’s decision to retain her, 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 some teachers allegedly threatened to resign en masse, even if true, did not Teacher ... effective July 5, 1982,” and that “any letter or notice of make them liable to her for damages, as they did not actually and physically termination received by you before this date has no sanction or prevent her from reporting for work. Their acts were not contrary to law, authority by the Board of Directors of this Institution, therefore it is morals, good customs or public policy. They did not "illegally dismiss" her declared null and void.” for the Board's decision to retain her prevailed. She was ordered to report 6. Some members of the Board of directors resigned “for the reason that the for work, but she did not comply with that order. Consequently, whatever ICI Faculty, has reacted acidly to the Board's deliberations for the reinstatement of Mrs. Esteria F. Garciano, thereby questioning the loss she may have incurred in the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted. integrity of the Board's decision.” 7. Garciano filed a complaint for damages against Fr. Wiertz, Emerito Labajo, The SC dismissed the petition and affirmed the CA’s ruling. and some members of the faculty of the school for discrimination and unjust and illegal dismissal. DOCTRINE: Liability for damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil 8. The lower court ruled in favor of Garciano and ordered the defendants to Code arises only from unlawful, willful or negligent acts that are contrary to pay her damages. law, or morals, good customs or public policy. a. P200,000 as moral damages, P50,000 as exemplary damages, P32,400 as lost earnings for nine years, and P10,000 as litigation expenses and attorney's fees. 9. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and absolved the defendants a. Their acts were not contrary to law, morals, good customs or from any liability. public policy. They did not "illegally dismiss" her for the 10. Hence, this petition. Board's decision to retain her prevailed. ISSUE/s: WoN Garciano is entitled to damages based on Article 19, 20, and 21 of 6. She was ordered to report for work, but she did not comply with that order. the Civil Code — NO. Consequently, whatever loss she may have incurred in the form of lost earnings was self-inflicted. Volenti non fit injuria. RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the 7. With respect to petitioner’s claim for moral damages, the right to recover decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. them under Article 21 is based on equity, and he who comes to court to demand equity, must come with clean hands. RATIO: 8. Article 21 should be construed as granting the right to recover damages 1. The board of directors of the Immaculate Concepcion Institute, which to injured persons who are not themselves at fault. 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 9. Moral damages are recoverable only if the case falls under Article 2219 in report for work. relation to Article 21. In the case at bar, petitioner is not without fault. 2. While the private respondents sent her a letter of termination through her a. Firstly, she went on an indefinite leave of absence and failed to husband, they admittedly had no authority to do so. Hence, the letter of report back in time for the regular opening of classes. termination sent to her through her husband by defendants-appellants had b. Secondly, for reasons known to herself alone, she refused to sign a no legal effect whatsoever. It did not effectively prevent her from written contract of employment. Lastly, she ignored the Board of reporting for work. Directors' order for her to report for duty on July 5, 1982.LexLib a. There was, therefore, no reason why she did not continue with her teaching in the school. No evidence had been presented to show 10. Lastly, the trial court's award of exemplary damages to her was not justified that defendants-appellants prevented her from reporting for work. for she is not entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages (Art. The fact that defendants-appellants had 'acidly' received the action 2234, Civil Code). of the Board of Directors repudiating their decision to terminate plaintiff-appellee is not proof that defendants-appellants had CITED PROVISIONS: effectively and physically prevented plaintiff-appellee from "Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of resuming her post. his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good b. As the CA held, it would appear, therefore, that Garciano had voluntarily desisted from her teaching job in the school and has no faith. right to recover damages from defendants-appellants. "Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage 3. Liability for damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. arises only from unlawful, willful or negligent acts that are contrary to "Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is law, or morals, good customs or public policy. contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the 4. Garciano’s discontinuance from teaching was her own choice. While the damage." 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. 5. 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.