Parties:

COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN CALAMBA, petitioner,

vs.
BELEN P. VILLAS, respondent.

Facts:
Respondent Belen Villas, a high school teacher, allegedly violated the conditions of her study
leave in an agreement with Mrs. Angelina Quiatchon, principal of the high school department, of herein
petitioner Colegio de San Juan de Letran.
As stated in a letter written by the President and Rector of the School, Fr. Ramonclaro G.
Mendez to the respondent, such violation was based on the ground that her failure to enroll during
the first semester was a violation of the conditions of the study leave and that the reasons she advanced
for failure to enroll during the first semester were not acceptable.
The case was referred to the grievance committee, as provided in the collective bargaining
agreement, but failed to reach a decision. Hence, a voluntary arbitration was resorted to. Voluntary
Arbitrator (VA) Mayuga found that respondent was illegally dismissed, and was ordered to be reinstated
to her former position in the school, without loss of seniority, and with full backwages and other
monetary benefits from s.y. 1996-97 up to the time of her reinstatement.
A motion for reconsideration was filed by herein petitioner, but was denied. The case was
elevated to the CA in a petition for review, but was also denied.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents alleged violation of the conditions of the study grant constituted
serious misconduct which justified her termination from petitioner School?

Ruling:
NO. The petition lacks merit. There was no violation in the conditions of the study leave grant.
The misconduct mentioned in Art. 282 of the Labor Code of the Philippines must be serious, and not
merely trivial or unimportant.
Petitioner alleges that, as agreed upon by the parties, Belen Villas:
a) Failed to report for work on April 1, 1996
b) Failed ti submit proof of her studies during the 1st semester of her leave period
c) Engaged in employment outside of her work.
However, the court agrees with the CA that the foregoing allegations did not warrant her
termination, as such were not constitutive of serious misconduct, but merely a simple one.
Petitioners failure to report for work on April 1, was not a sanctionable offense under the
schools Faculty Manual. Furthermore, the court finds that such manual was ambiguous, and has a loose
connotation of employment in a sense that it may include any work or service rendered in exchange for
money. As a rule, doubts relating to employer-employee agreements shall be construed in favor of the
laborer. The act of respondent in selling insurance and cookware was not the employment prohibited by
the Faculty Manual.
Furthermore, the petitioner violated the mandatory requirement of the two-notice rule under
Art. 282 of the Labor Code, in order for respondents dismissal to be valid. The letters that were
allegedly sent to Belen Villas, did not comply with the requirements of the law.
Wherefore, Colegio de San Juan de Letrans petition is denied.