Barrera v. University of Sto. Tomas

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 233214. September 7, 2020.]

REYNALDO T. BARRERA, petitioner, vs. UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS AND/OR FR. HERMINIO DAGOHOY, O.P., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 7, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 233214 (REYNALDO T. BARRERA, petitioner v. UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS and/or FR. HERMINIO DAGOHOY, O.P., respondents). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, seeking the reversal and setting aside of the Decision 2 dated July 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 146346. The assailed issuance affirmed in toto the Decision 3 dated December 28, 2015 and Resolution 4 dated April 20, 2016 of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Fifth Division, in NLRC LAC No. 08-002180-15 which, in turn, reversed and set aside the May 7, 2015 Decision 5 of Labor Arbiter (LA) Clarissa G. Beltran-Lerios (Beltran-Lerios) in NLRC NCR Case No. 07-08015-14, for illegal dismissal and other money claims.

The Antecedents

Sometime in June 2001, 6 petitioner Reynaldo T. Barrera (petitioner) was hired by respondent University of Santo Tomas (UST) as a professor for different business subjects. At the time of his termination from employment, he held the position of Cluster Head of the Business Education Cluster of UST's Alfredo M. Velayo College of Accountancy. 7

During a meeting of the Business Education Cluster, which was held on the third week of June 2013, the faculty members of the Business Education Cluster were instructed to prescribe two textbooks for the use of their students, namely: (a) The Essentials of Strategic Management (TESM), 8 priced at P425.00 per unit; and (b) Principles of Human Behavior in Organization (PHBO), 9 priced at P450.00 per unit. Both textbooks bear the names of petitioner and his colleagues in the UST faculty, Dr. Jovita Laura Abara (Dr. Abara) and Dr. Michael Martin (Dr. Martin), as authors. Among the other faculty members who attended this meeting and witnessed petitioner's endorsement of the said books were Mark Lester D. Toribio and Cecilia D. Torres. 10

Later, it was discovered by UST students Rosa Carla A. Mariano and Coleen Y. Cubi, 11 Nico Jose R. Ocampo 12 and Kevin B. Yu 13 that most of the portions of TESM and PHBO were directly lifted, without any attribution, from international publications. Majority of the contents of TESM were copied from Dess: Strategic Management which was authored by Gregory G. Dess and published by McGraw Hill Education, while the bulk of PHBO were duplicated from Human Behavior in Organization, 2nd Edition, which was written by Ricky W. Griffin and Gregory Moorhood and published by Cengage Learning. 14 Upon learning of the students' discovery, petitioner went to his class and instructed his students to tear off the front covers of TESM and PHBO and surrender their copies of the said books to him. The students who complied with his instructions were refunded the amount of P200.00 each. 15

On August 13, 2013, UST received a formal letter 16 from McGraw Education (Asia) denouncing the copyright infringement which was facilitated by the publication and commercial distribution of TESM. Thereafter, on September 13, 2013, petitioner and his co-authors were administratively charged with plagiarism, serious misconduct, violation of UST policies and breach of trust and confidence before the Alfredo M. Velayo College of Accountancy Faculty Tribunal (Faculty Tribunal). 17

Petitioner was formally apprised of said charges in a letter 18 dated October 6, 2013. In his answer, 19 petitioner advanced the claim that he had no participation in the writing and publication of TESM and PHBO. He asserted that he was named a co-author of the said books without his knowledge and permission. In support of his claim, petitioner presented Dr. Martin's letter 20 dated July 11, 2013 and Dr. Martin's public apology 21 to McGraw Hill Education which was published by The Philippine Star on September 9, 2013. In his letter, Dr. Martin claimed full responsibility for The acts of plagiarism, stating that neither petitioner nor Dr. Abara had any contribution in its commission. Dr. Martin also proclaimed that he only included the petitioner's name as co-author because the latter was the one who proposed that they write a book together, while Dr. Abara was named co-author simply because she was Dr. Martin's former coordinator. Dr. Martin also declared that he did not show petitioner and Dr. Abara the drafts of the books before submitting the same to the publisher.

Petitioner likewise decried the accusation that he prescribed TESM and PHBO to the professors in the Business Education Cluster. He claimed that he merely informed his colleagues that Dr. Martin was writing a book and that they may prescribe the same as a manual or textbook for the students. Petitioner denied ordering the tearing off of the cover pages of the books in question, claiming that it was a suggestion made by their former Dean, Assistant Professor Minerva O. Cruz. In fine, petitioner argued that his only participation in the plagiarized books was limited to information dissemination and their subsequent recall. 22

The Faculty Tribunal then conducted conferences and hearings on October 29, 2013, 23 November 15, 2013, 24 December 4, 2013, 25 January 16, 2014, 26 February 3, 2014, 27 and February 10, 2014. 28

On February 24, 2014, the Faculty Tribunal rendered a resolution finding petitioner, Dr. Abara and Mr. Martin guilty of plagiarism. Consequently, they were ordered dismissed from employment with immediate effect. 29 Petitioner appealed 30 his dismissal to respondent Fr. Herminio Dagohoy, O.P. (Fr. Dagohoy), Rector of UST. However, in a letter 31 dated May 9, 2014, Fr. Dagohoy affirmed the ruling of the Faculty Tribunal.

On July 1, 2014, petitioner filed against UST a Complaint 32 for illegal dismissal as well as actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees with the arbitration branch of the NLRC.

Meanwhile, on September 23, 2014, petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit 33 against Dr. Martin for the crime of falsification before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.

The Ruling of the LA

On May 7, 2015, LA Beltran-Lerios rendered a Decision in favor of petitioner. The LA found that petitioner could not be held responsible for the acts of plagiarism because Dr. Martin had already taken full responsibility therefor. Petitioner was thus illegally dismissed. However, since petitioner exhibited negligence in failing to read the contents of the plagiarized books and was too lax in not calling for their immediate recall, he was not entitled to payment of backwages and damages. Thus, LA Beltran-Lerios decreed:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding complainant to have been illegally dismissed.

Respondents are hereby ordered to immediately reinstate complainant Reynaldo Barrera to his former or substantially equivalent position without loss of seniority rights and other benefits but without backwages.

SO ORDERED. 34

Dissatisfied, both parties interposed an appeal with the NLRC. Petitioner insisted on his entitlement to backwages and damages. 35 On the other hand, UST maintained that petitioner was validly dismissed. 36

The Ruling of the NLRC

In its December 28, 2015 Decision, the NLRC found merit in UST's asseverations. According to the NLRC, it was highly unlikely that petitioner was not aware that he was named co-author of TESM and PHBO when he himself endorsed the same as required textbooks for the UST students. The NLRC similarly found that after the discovery of the plagiarized content in the said books, petitioner's acts and behavior manifested an intent to cover up his part in the transgression. Resultantly, petitioner was lawfully terminated by UST.

The dispositive portion of the NLRC's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, complainant's Appeal is DENIED for utter lack of merit, while respondents' Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of Labor Arbiter Clarissa G. Beltran-Lerios dated May 7, 2015 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is entered declaring complainant to have been validly dismissed. Accordingly, the complaint is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 37

Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 38 was denied by the NLRC in its April 20, 2016 Resolution. Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari39 with the CA.

The Ruling of the CA

In the herein assailed Decision dated July 31, 2017, the CA ruled that the NLRC did not gravely abuse its discretion in finding that petitioner was validly dismissed. The appellate court declared that the circumstantial evidence presented in the instant case proves that petitioner facilitated the commission of plagiarism and that, upon its discovery, was actively involved in attempting to conceal the deed. Thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 28 December 2015 and Resolution dated 20 April 2016 of the public respondent NLRC in NLRC NCR CASE NO. 07-08015-14 are hereby AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED. 40

Hence, the present recourse.

Issues

Petitioner argues in the affirmative of the following issues:

I.

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER [HAS] BEEN VALIDLY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE DESPITE THE ADMISSION MADE BY THE REAL AUTHOR THAT HE IS THE ONE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ALLEGED ACT OF PLAGIARISM;

II.

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONER IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE AWARD OF BACKWAGES; AND

III.

WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT AWARDING MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. 41

The Ruling of the Court

Generally, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 42 because this Court is not a trier of facts. 43 However, the present case falls under one of the exceptions to this rule, i.e., when the findings of the LA, the NLRC, and/or the CA are in conflict with one another. 44 Under this situation, such conflicting factual findings are not binding on Us, and We retain the authority to pass on the evidence presented and draw conclusions therefrom. 45 It thus becomes proper for the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, to review and re-evaluate the factual issues and to look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings. 46

In termination disputes or illegal dismissal cases, it has been established by Philippine law and jurisprudence that the employer has the burden of proving that the dismissal is for just and valid causes; and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal was not justified and is, therefore, illegal. 47 In labor cases, as in other administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence, defined as ''that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion[,]" 48 even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine differently. 49

In the case at bar, it is undisputed that the contents of TESM and PHBO were plagiarized from international publications. The parties, however, disagree as to the persons who should bear the consequences of such act.

Petitioner excoriates his dismissal on grounds of plagiarism, asseverating that there is no direct evidence that he committed the said act. Full responsibility for the acts of plagiarism was acknowledged by Dr. Martin himself. Dr. Martin also corroborated petitioner's claim that his name was included as a co-author of the said books without his knowledge and consent.

On the other hand, UST argues that petitioner's actions show that he was complicit with Dr. Martin in passing off the books in question as their original collaborative academic work, as exhibited by petitioner's act of prescribing the books for the use of their students. Moreover, petitioner tried to conceal the plagiarism when he ordered his students to tear off the cover page of their copies of TESM and PHBO.

Following a punctilious examination of the records, the Court finds that there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that petitioner's dismissal from UST was valid and lawful.

It must be noted that in order to meet the standard of substantial evidence in labor cases, it is not required that there be a direct evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the employee. It is settled that "[t]he lack of direct evidence should not obstruct the adjudication of a dispute, for circumstantial evidence may be available for the purpose. The Rules of Court has really made no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred." 50 In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, circumstantial evidence is not to be considered any less reliable than direct evidence. 51 Circumstantial evidence and direct evidence inherently possess the same probative value. 52 In some cases, circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence. 53

The facts as established by the evidence which are extant in the instant case show that: (1) TESM and PHBO bore the name of petitioner as one of their authors; (2) in his capacity as Cluster Head of the Business Education Cluster of UST's Alfredo M. Velayo College of Accountancy, petitioner held a meeting with the other members of the faculty to recommend TESM and PHBO as prescribed textbooks for their students; (3) upon the discovery that the books were plagiarized, petitioner instructed his students to tear off the cover pages thereof and surrender the said books to him; and (4) upon the surrender of the said books, petitioner refunded the said students the amount of P200.00 each. Under the circumstances, one could reasonably conclude that petitioner took an active personal role in the promotion, distribution and eventual recall of TESM and PHBO.

In the same vein, We cannot sustain petitioner's defense that full responsibility for the acts of plagiarism was admitted by Dr. Martin, and that he was not aware that Dr. Martin placed his name as a co-author. We agree with the CA's ratiocination that it is very unlikely for an experienced professor of a prestigious university, such as petitioner, to recommend a book without even glancing at its cover page. As a co-author, it can reasonably be assumed that petitioner had actually read his own books and examined if there was a complete and proper attribution of all of the sources derived therefrom. Worse, petitioner's attempt to hide his co-authorship of the book further exposed his ill intent to evade responsibility for his acts.

Indeed, the standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that petitioner, as in this case, is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. 54 The same holds true in the present case. Accordingly, the Court upholds the findings and conclusions of the NLRC as affirmed by the CA.

As to the gravity of petitioner's offense, the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) of UST states that the penalty of termination may be imposed for employees who were found guilty of dishonesty and grave/serious misconduct. 55

Dishonesty implies a "[d]isposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity[; l]ack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.'' 56 On the other hand, serious misconduct is said to be a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and indicative of wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. 57 Readily apparent in this case was petitioner's conduct that gravely transgressed UST's rules against plagiarism, thereby warranting his termination from employment. Ergo, UST has discharged its burden of proving that petitioner was dismissed for a just or lawful cause. Settled is the rule that an employer cannot be compelled to retain a misbehaving employee, or one who is guilty of acts inimical to its interests. It has the right to dismiss such an employee if only as a measure of self-protection. 58 We therefore find that the CA did not commit any reversible error when it affirmed the findings and conclusions of the NLRC.

All told, the Court holds the assailed issuances of the CA to be correct, the same being in accord with prevailing laws and established jurisprudence.

The law, in protecting the rights of the laborers, authorizes neither oppression nor self-destruction of the employer. 59 The constitutional commitment to the policy of social justice cannot be understood to mean that every labor dispute shall automatically be decided in favor of labor. 60 There may be cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor over the interests of management but never should the scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer. Justitia nemini neganda est (Justice is to be denied to none). 61

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated July 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 146346 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-23.

2.Id. at 26-36; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.

3.Id. at 56-70; signed by Commissioner Dolores M. Peralta-Beley and concurred in by Presiding Commissioner Grace E. Maniquiz-Tan and Commissioner Mercedes R. Posada-Lacap.

4.Id. at 72-75.

5.Id. at 79-88.

6.Id. at 76.

7.Id. at 27.

8.Id. at 400.

9.Id. at 401.

10.Id. at 599-600.

11.Id. at 601-602.

12.Id. at 603-604.

13.Id. at 605-606.

14.Id. at 149-150.

15.Id. at 248-249.

16.Id. at 162.

17.Id. at 125-129.

18.Id. at 130.

19.Id. at 131-134.

20.Id. at 165-166.

21.Id. at 167.

22.Id. at 132.

23.Id. at 298-299.

24.Id. at 300-302.

25.Id. at 303-305.

26.Id. at 306-307.

27.Id. at 308-309.

28.Id.at 310-312.

29.Id. at 136-143.

30.Id. at 241-247.

31.Id. at 296-297.

32.Id. at 76-78.

33.Id. at 396-399.

34.Id. at 88.

35.Id. at 489-497.

36.Id. at 517-536.

37.Id. at 69.

38.Id. at 541-549.

39.Id. at 37-54.

40.Id. at 35.

41.Id. at 7.

42.Pascual v. Burgos, et al., 776 Phil. 167 (2016).

43.BP Oil and Chemicals International Philippines, Inc. v. Total Distribution & Logistic Systems, Inc., 815 Phil. 244, 253 (2017).

44.Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. v. Masagca, G.R. No. 191310, April 11, 2018.

45.Paredes v. Feed the Children Philippines, Inc., et al., 769 Phil. 418, 433 (2015).

46.Reyes v. Glaucoma Research Foundation, Inc., et al., 760 Phil. 779, 790 (2015).

47.Gopio v. Bautista, G.R. No. 205953, June 6, 2018.

48.Doctor, et al. v. NII Enterprises, et al., 821 Phil. 251, 264-265 (2017).

49.Fajardo v. Corral, 813 Phil. 149, 156 (2017).

50.Ceniza v. Ceniza, Jr., A.C. No. 8335, April 10, 2019. See People v. Ramos, et al., 310 Phil. 186, 195-196 (1995); citing Robinson v. State, 18 Md. App. 678, 308 A2d 734 (1973).

51.State v. Delmarter, 618 P. 2d 99 (1980).

52.State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St. 3d 259 (1991).

53.Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90 (2003).

54.Lim v. Fuentes, 820 Phil. 344, 359 (2017).

55.Rollo, p. 462.

56.Castillo, et al. v. Prudential Life Plans, Inc., et al., 730 Phil. 497, 519 (2014).

57.Quiambao v. Manila Electric Company, 623 Phil. 416, 422-423 (2009).

58.Visayan Electric Company Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. Visayan Electric Company, Inc. (VECO), 764 Phil. 608, 625 (2015).

59.Solidbank Corporation v. NLRC, et al., 631 Phil. 158, 174 (2010).

60.Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation v. Alcon, et al., 746 Phil. 172, 179 (2014).

61.Philippine Long Distance and Telephone Company, Inc. v. Balbastro, 548 Phil. 168, 183 (2007).