DELIA R. SIBAL, PETITIONER, VS. NOTRE DAME OF GREATER MANILA, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.

Sibal versus Notre Dame of Greater Manila

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Delia R. Sibal, a school nurse, against her employer, Notre Dame of Greater Manila, and the National Labor Relations Commission. She asks the Supreme Court to reverse the Commission's affirmance of a labor arbiter's award of separation pay, and to declare instead that she was illegally dismissed, that she is entitled to reinstatement with backwages, to extra compensation for teaching, and to moral damages. The case matters because it fixes the rule on when "strained relations" may justify separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and because it treats the dismissal of an employee on the very day she was served with summons on her money claims as a retaliatory and unfair labor practice.

Procedural History

Delia Sibal filed a complaint for non-payment of vacation pay, teaching compensation, and a deficiency in her thirteenth month pay. After she was terminated, she amended her complaint to add illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice. The labor arbiter rendered a decision finding that the termination was not supported by any just cause, yet ordered separation pay instead of reinstatement, and denied her claims for teaching compensation, moral damages, and unfair labor practice. Sibal filed a memorandum of partial appeal. The National Labor Relations Commission, by majority, affirmed the labor arbiter in a decision dated April 11, 1986, with one commissioner dissenting. Sibal then filed this petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court on July 15, 1986.

Facts

Delia Sibal was employed as school nurse by Notre Dame of Greater Manila starting January 1973. Before school year 1976 to 1977, she was paid on a twelve-month basis although she worked only during the ten-month period of classes, and she was not required to report during the Christmas and summer vacations. In March 1976 the director, Father Enrique Gonzales, asked her to shorten her summer vacation, and she acceded. In April 1980, when Father Gonzales required her to report during summer to help in the library, she objected in writing that this would change the terms of her employment and that library work was alien to her profession; the director relented.

In November 1980, Father Pablo Garcia replaced Father Gonzales as director. He required Sibal to report during the summer before school year 1981 to 1982. She told him her contract did not require it; he promised to verify but never informed her of his findings. To protect herself, she filed leaves of absence from April 1 to June 14, 1981, and she did not receive her vacation pay. During school year 1981 to 1982, because the two health teachers had left, she was assigned to teach health to nine hundred students spread across nineteen sections of the high school, but she was not given compensation for teaching, although other teachers were paid for extra work. Her thirteenth month pay was computed on a ten-month basis.

In April 1982, Father Garcia again ordered her to work during summer to update clinical records. She objected in writing, reminding him that she had not been paid for teaching health subjects. He replied that reporting was imperative and that teaching was part of her regular working program as school nurse. After further exchanges, including a threat of drastic measures, she filed her complaint on May 10, 1982. Summons was served on the school on June 14, 1982, the opening day of classes. On that very day, when she reported for work, the school served her a letter of termination effective immediately and furnished a copy to the Ministry of Labor and Employment. She amended her complaint the next day. Within weeks, more than twenty teachers and personnel petitioned for the ouster of Father Garcia, who was eventually replaced on September 8, 1983.

Issues

• Whether or not the award of separation pay instead of reinstatement is the proper remedy under the circumstances.
• Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to compensation for teaching health subjects.
• Whether or not unfair labor practice existed which would entitle her to moral damages.

Applicable Provisions

Article 118 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:

Retaliatory measures. — It shall be unlawful for an employer to refuse to pay or reduce the wages and benefits, discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee who has filed any complaint or instituted any proceeding under this Title or has testified or is about to testify in such proceedings.

This provision bears on the case because the school dismissed Sibal on the very day it was served with summons on her complaint for money claims.

Article 249, paragraph f, of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 249. Unfair labor practice of employers. — It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice. (f) to dismiss, discharge, or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give testimony under this code.

This provision bears on the case because the Court treats the retaliatory dismissal as an unfair labor practice of the employer.

Article 1701 of the Civil Code, as invoked in the decision, provides:

Neither capital nor labor shall act oppressively against the other, or impair the interest or convenience of the public.

This provision bears on the case because the series of discriminatory acts of the school made it liable for moral damages.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that separation pay was not the proper remedy and that reinstatement with backwages was. The labor arbiter had found no just cause for the termination, yet ordered separation pay on the ground that Sibal's relations with Father Garcia had become so strained that harmonious work was impossible. The Court held this finding untrue and merely speculative. The conflict was strictly official in nature, caused by the director's violation of the terms of employment, and Sibal asserted her rights with tact and courtesy. The Court quoted with approval the dissent: no strained relations should arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one's right, and strained relations, to justify separation pay, must be so compelling and serious that continued employment is obnoxious to the employer. The Court also noted that Father Garcia had been replaced on September 8, 1983, so by the time the Commission decided on April 11, 1986, the irritant factors had been totally eliminated.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that Sibal is entitled to compensation for teaching health subjects. Teaching in the classroom and administering to the health needs of students in the clinic are two different and distinct jobs. Teaching requires lesson plans, examinations, and grades, while clinical work entails clinical records and treating illnesses. The school had a practice of paying extra compensation to teachers given extra load, and justice and equity demand extra pay for extra work.

On the third issue, the Court ruled that unfair labor practice existed and that moral damages are due. The school dismissed Sibal on the very day summons was served, in violation of the Labor Code provisions quoted above. The Court found a series of discriminatory and oppressive acts: withholding her vacation pay while the doctor and dentist were paid, failing to pay her for teaching while gaining the salary of two health teachers, underpaying her thirteenth month pay, and finally terminating her without due process. The amount of moral damages was left to the Commission to determine.

Doctrine

Strained relations, to justify separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, must be so compelling and so serious that the employee's continued employment is obnoxious to the person or business of the employer; they cannot arise from the employee's valid and legal act of asserting her rights. An employee illegally dismissed is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and to backwages, not merely separation pay. Teaching and clinical nursing are distinct functions, so extra work merits extra compensation under the principle of equal pay for equal work. Dismissing an employee on the day summons on her money claims is served constitutes a retaliatory measure under Article 118 and an unfair labor practice under Article 249 of the Labor Code, rendering the employer liable for moral damages under Article 1701 of the Civil Code.

Disposition

The Court set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission and ordered the school to reinstate Sibal without loss of seniority rights and with backwages for three years, to pay her the regular extra compensation for teaching health subjects, and to pay moral damages in an amount to be determined by the Commission, to which the case was remanded for implementation.

Remember This

Memorize the line that strained relations cannot arise from a valid and legal act of asserting one's right. Examiners use this case on the separation pay versus reinstatement question and on retaliatory dismissal as unfair labor practice.