Damages; Bad Faith

ELIZABETH L. DIAZ, Petitioner, v. GEORGINA R. ENCANTO, ERNESTO G. TABUJARA,

GEMINO H. ABAD AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
G.R. No. 171303, January 20, 2016
FIRST DIVISION Leonardo-De Castro, J.:

Facts:

Petitioner Diaz has been a professor in UP since 1963. In 1988, she appliedfor sabbatical leave with pay
for one year. The Chair of the Broadcast Department initially recommended to CMC Dean Encanto that
Diaz’s sabbatical application be granted. Thereafter, Encanto referred Diaz’s sabbatical application to the
Secretary of U.P., recommending its denial. Encantoalso requested the her salary be withheld effective
July 1, 1988 until further notice since her sabbatical application has not yet been approved and that she
did not teach that semester.

On July 4, 1988, it was recommended that Diaz be granted a leave without pay in order to enable the
CMC to hire a substitute. The next day, the U.P.’s Secretary referred to the Vice-President for Academic
Affairs, the fact of denial of such sabbatical request, for his own recommendation to the U.P. President.
On July 8, 1988, Abad returned the Reference Slip indicating therein that Diaz had promised him to put
down in writing the historical backdrop to the latest denial of her sabbatical leave, but she did not do so.
On Diaz’s request to teach for that semester, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the HRDO
Director instructed Encanto that until Prof. Diaz officially reports for duty, accomplishes the Certificate of
Report for Duty, and the Dean of CMC confirms her date of actual report for duty, she is considered
absent without official leave.

On November 8, 1988, Abad issued a Memorandum to Diaz to confirm as valid Encanto’s reason of
shortage of teaching staff in denying her sabbatical. Later, he also informed Diaz of her lack of service
during the first semester of AY 1988-89, hence she is not entitled to be paid. While Diaz was able to teach
during the second semester of AY 1988-89, she was not able to claim her salaries for her refusal to submit
the Report for Duty Form.

Diaz instituted a complaint against U.P., Abueva, Encanto, Tabujara and Abad with the Pasig RTC praying
that the latter be adjudged, jointly and severally to pay her damages. She claimed, among others, that

They conspired together as joint tortfeasors, in not paying her salaries from July 1, 1988 in the first
semester of academic year 1988-89, for the entire period when her sabbatical application was left
unresolved, as well as the salaries she earned from teaching in the second semester from November 1988
to May 1989. She likewise claimed moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The RTC held that
Diaz was entitled to a sabbatical leave and that they delay in the resolution of her application was
unreasonable and unconscionable but the CA reversed it on appeal, ruling that there was neither
negligence nor bad faith in denying her application and withholding her salaries.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondents acted in bad faith when they resolved Diaz’s application for leave thus
entitling her to damages

Ruling:
No, they did not act in bad faith. Diaz’s complaint for recovery of damages before the RTC was based on
the alleged bad faith of the respondents in denying her application for sabbatical leave vis-à-vis Articles
19 and 20 of the Civil Code.

Xxxxx
Article 19 of the Civil Code “prescribes a ‘primordial limitation on all rights’ by setting certain standards
that must be observed in the exercise thereof.” Abuse of right under Article 19 exists when the following
elements are present: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole
intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
xxxxx

The Ombudsman and all three courts, starting from the RTC to this Court, have already established that a
sabbatical leave is not a right and therefore petitioner Diaz cannot demand its grant. It does not matter
thatthere was only one reason for the denial of her application, as the approvingauthorities found that such
reason was enough. Moreover, not only the Court of Appeals but also the Ombudsman, and this Court,
have ruled that the respondents did not act in bad faith when petitioner Diaz’s sabbaticalleave application
was denied. Those three separate rulings verily must be given great weight in the case at bar.
The Court does not find any reason to disregard those findings, especially when our own perusal of the
evidence showed no traces of bad faith or malice in the respondents’ denial of petitioner Diaz’s
application for sabbatical leave. They processed her application in accordance with their usual procedure
– with more leeway, in fact, since petitioner Diaz was given the chance to support her application when
she was asked to submit a historical background; and the denial was based on the recommendation of
respondentEncanto, who was in the best position to know whether petitioner Diaz’s application should be
granted or not.

xxxxx
Nevertheless, on the question of whether or not there was bad faith inthe delay of the resolution of
petitioner Diaz’s sabbatical leave application, the Court still rules in the negative. “It is an elementary rule
in this jurisdiction that good faith is presumed and that the burden of proving bad faith rests upon the
party alleging the same.” Petitioner Diaz has failed to prove bad faith on the part of the respondents.
There is nothing in the records to show that the respondents purposely delayed the resolution of her
application to prejudice and injure her. She has not even shown that the delay of six months in resolving a
sabbatical leave application has never happened prior to her case. On the contrary, any delay that occurred
was due to the fact that petitioner Diaz’s application for sabbatical leave did not follow the usual
procedure; hence, the processing of said application took time.
xxxxx

Given that the respondents have not abused their rights, they should not be held liable for any damages
sustained by petitioner Diaz. “The law affords no remedy for damages resulting from an act which does
not amount to a legal wrong. Situations like this have been appropriately denominated damnum absque
injuria. Similarly, the Court cannot grant petitioner Diaz’s claim for attorney’s fees as no premium should
be placed on the right to litigate. “Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to
protect his rights, still attorney’s fees may not be awarded where there is no sufficient showing of bad
faith in a party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 55165 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the University of the
Philippines, through its appropriate officials, is directed to pay petitioner Elizabeth L. Diaz her withheld
salaries 1) from July 1, 1988 to October 31, 1988, with legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum, computed from the date of the Decision of the RTC on April 17, 1996 until fully paid; and 2)
from November 1, 1988 to May 31, 1989 and July 16, 1989 to May 31, 1990, with legal interest at the
rate of six percent (6%) per annum computed from the date petitioner Elizabeth L. Diaz submits the
documents required by the University of the Philippines until fully paid.

SO ORDERED