There was a valid dismissal in this case because of just cause
and abandonment.
Introduction
Quality Education is a constitutional mandate. In compliance
with that, a school is given the prerogative to maintain standards of efficiency for its teachers and to dismiss teachers who fail to attain reasonable work goals set by it.
Ms. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias was issued a letter informing her
that she failed to meet the required minimum evaluation rating for faculty members during the 5-year period beginning school year 1998 until 2003 and thus placed her on forced leave during the first semester of school year 2003-2004. On June 5, 2003, she filed her complaint for illegal dismissal on the ground that she was suspended during the first semester of school year 2003-2004.
Petitioner, for five times, notified by Saint Louis University, Inc.
to resume teaching for the second semester of school year 200-2004 following the service of suspension during the first semester. She was advised that teaching load had already been prepared for her. Respondent never ever replied to those notices.
Petitioner’s justification for her failure to respond to the notices
- that her acceptance of the offer could not be constituted as a waiver of claims – is not indeed a valid excuse.
Petitioner forgets that her complaint for “illegal dismissal”
which she filed on June 5, 2003 sprung, not her from dismissal on December 6, 2003 due to abandonment but, from her suspension during the first semester of school year 2003-2004.
Conclusion:
Ms. Evangeline C. Cobarrubias was accorded due process as
Saint Louis University, Inc. informed the faculty members of their ratings after every evaluation period and inviting them to examine their grades and discuss with their evaluators amounts to sufficient compliance with due process. The means of checking the performance of the respondent’s teachers are ultimately necessary to maintain the quality of higher education it provides.
Apparently, the principle of res judicata has set in the case of
SLU v. Cobarrubias, G.R. No. 187104, 03 August 2010. The Supreme Court decided that the complaint was validly dismissed due to abandonment. The complainant as declared by the Supreme Court had already abandoned her job hence the respondent’s action of terminating her has no legal implication. She was validly dismissed. The Decision of the Supreme Court became final and executor on November 11, 2010 and was recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments.