Diaz v Encanto Encanto et al. (G.R. No. 171303)
Date: January 20, 2016 Ponente: Justice Leonardo-de Castro Facts:
Petitioner Diaz has been a professor in UP since 16!" #n 1$$, she app%ied for sabbatica% %ea&e 'ith pay for one year" (he Chair of the )roadcast Depart*ent initia%%y reco**ended to C+C Dean ncanto that Diazs sabbatica% app%ication be .ranted" (hereafter, ncanto referr referred ed Diazs Diazs sabbatica sabbatica%% app%ica app%ication tion to the /ecretar /ecretary y of U"P", reco**en reco**endin. din. its denia%" denia%" ncanto a%so reuested the her sa%ary be 'ithhe%d eecti&e Ju%y 1, 1$$ unti% further notice since her sabbatica% app%ication has not yet been appro&ed and that she did not teach that se*ester" n Ju%y 3, 1$$, it 'as reco**ended that Diaz be .ranted a %ea&e 'ithout pay in order to enab%e the C+C to hire a substitute" (he ne4t day, the U"P"s /ecretary referred to the 5icePresident for cade*ic airs, the fact of denia% of such sabbatica% reuest, for his o'n reco**endation to the U"P" President" n Ju%y $, 1$$, bad returned the 7eference /%ip indicatin. therein therein that Diaz had pro*ised hi* to put do'n in 'ritin. the historica% bac8drop to the %atest denia% of her sabbatica% %ea&e, but she did not do so" n Diazs reuest to teach for that se*ester, the 5ice Chance%%or for cade*ic airs and the 97D Director instructed ncanto that unti% Prof" Prof" Diaz ocia%%y reports for duty, acco*p%ishes the Certi;cate of 7eport for Duty, and the Dean of C+C con;r*s her date of actua% report for duty, she is considered absent 'ithout ocia% %ea&e" n
hi%e Diaz 'as ab%e to teach durin. the second se*ester of = 1$$-$, she 'as not ab%e to c%ai* her sa%aries for her refusa% to sub*it the 7eport for Duty ?or*" Diaz instituted a co*p%aint a.ainst U"P", U"P", bue&a, ncanto, (abu@ara (abu@ara and bad 'ith the Pasi. Pasi. 7(C prayin. that the %atter be [email protected], @oint%y and se&era%%y to pay her da*a.es" /he c%ai*ed, a*on. others, that (hey conspired to.ether as @oint tortfeasors, in not payin. her sa%aries fro* Ju%y 1, 1$$ in the ;rst se*ester se*ester of acade*ic acade*ic year 1$$-$, for the entire period 'hen her sabbatic sabbatica% a% app%ication 'as %eft unreso%&ed, as 'e%% as the sa%aries she earned fro* teachin. in the second second se*es se*ester ter fro* fro* hethe >hetherr or not the respo responde ndents nts acted acted in bad faith faith 'hen 'hen they they reso% reso%&ed &ed Diazs Diazs app%ication for %ea&e thus entit%in. her to da*a.es 7u%in.:
on%y the Court of ppea%s but a%so the *buds*an, and this Court, ha&e ru%ed that the respondents did not act in bad faith 'hen petitioner Diazs sabbatica% %ea&e app%ication 'as denied" (hose three separate ru%in.s &eri%y *ust be .i&en .reat 'ei.ht in the case at bar" (he Court does not ;nd any reason to disre.ard those ;ndin.s, especia%%y 'hen our o'n perusa% of the e&idence sho'ed no traces of bad faith or *a%ice in the respondents denia% of petitioner Diazs app%ication for sabbatica% %ea&e" (hey processed her app%ication in accordance 'ith their usua% procedure H 'ith *ore %ee'ay, in fact, since petitioner Diaz 'as .i&en the chance to support her app%ication 'hen she 'as as8ed to sub*it a historica% bac8.roundG and the denia% 'as based on the reco**endation of respondent ncanto, 'ho 'as in the best position to 8no' 'hether petitioner Diazs app%ication shou%d be .ranted or not" 44444