Scribd
Upload
81 views1 page

ST MIchael v. Santos - Labor

St. Michael's Institute filed a complaint against teachers Santos, Magcamit and Rosarda for their participation in a public rally organized by teachers to call attention to grievances about school facilities and economic demands. The teachers were dismissed in response. While the Labor Arbiter dismissed the teachers' complaint, the NLRC and CA found the dismissal to be illegal. The Supreme Court agreed, noting it was a first offense for long-time teacher Santos, and the penalty of dismissal was too harsh given the circumstances. The facts also suggested the teachers were singled out for being union officers, though other teachers joined the rally.

Uploaded by

oniksukkie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
81 views1 page

ST MIchael v. Santos - Labor

St. Michael's Institute filed a complaint against teachers Santos, Magcamit and Rosarda for their participation in a public rally organized by teachers to call attention to grievances about school facilities and economic demands. The teachers were dismissed in response. While the Labor Arbiter dismissed the teachers' complaint, the NLRC and CA found the dismissal to be illegal. The Supreme Court agreed, noting it was a first offense for long-time teacher Santos, and the penalty of dismissal was too harsh given the circumstances. The facts also suggested the teachers were singled out for being union officers, though other teachers joined the rally.

Uploaded by

oniksukkie
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

St. Michael's Institute, et. al. vs. Santos, et. al.

G.R. No. 145280


December 4, 2001
FACTS:
Petitioner is a learning institute in Bacoor, Cavite with Fr. Victorino as Director and Blanco as the Principal
and respondents Santos, Magcamit and Rosarda were regular classroom teachers. On Aug. 10, 1993, there
held a public rally organized and participated by, among others, the respondents aimed at calling the
attention of the school administration to certain grievances relative to substandard school facilities and the
economic demands of teachers and other employees. in response to the memoranda issued by Blanco,
Magcamit and Rosarda denied all the accusations attributed to them while Santos justified her actions as
having been done on behalf of her co-teachers with the parents' blessings.
After finding that respondents had led and actively participated in the rally through an investigation,
petitioners dismissed their employment that caused the former to file a complaint against petitioners for
illegal dismissal. The LA dismissed the cause for lack of merit declaring that there was just cause for the
dismissal of the respondents' complaints. The NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and held that
the respondents had been illegally dismissed. This was sustained by the CA.
ISSUE: WON the conduct of the respondents warranted their dismissal from their employment.
RULING:
We agree with the appellate court's conclusion that, under the attendant factual antecedents, the
dismissal meted out on the respondents for dereliction of duty for one school day and denouncing school
authority, appears to be too harsh a penalty. It must be noted that the respondents are being held liable
for a first time offense and, in the case of respondent Santos, despite long years of unblemished service.
Even when an employee is found to have transgressed the employer's rules, in the actual imposition of
penalties upon the erring employee, due consideration must still be given to his length of service and the
number of violations committed during his employment. Where a penalty less punitive would suffice,
whatever missteps may have been committed by the employee ought not to be visited with a
consequence so severe such as dismissal from employment. Moreover, the facts, as further established on
appeal in the NLRC, paint out a picture that the respondents were singled out by the petitioners apparently
for being officers of the teachers' union which they formed, despite the fact that several other teachers
also joined the August 10, 1993 rally.

You might also like