dOCTRINE
It is not proper to speak to a student in a manner of anger and dissatisfaction in words, especially in a classroom setting or even within the school grounds, where it is clear that the person was acting in their capacity as a professor.
Facts
The University of the Cordilleras employed Benedicto Lacanaria as an Instructor-Associate Professor at the College of Teacher Education. On February 25, 2010, during a scheduled creative presentation for Lacanaria’s class, one of his students, Rafael Flores, did not join in the dance portion of their group number, although he participated in the singing and acting parts. Apparently, Flores had a persistent cough, but he attended the class since an absence would yield a grade of zero for the performance.
Because Flores did not join in the dance segment, Lacanaria instructed him to dance anyway to be fair to the whole group. However, while Flores was dancing, his knees suddenly gave out, which caused him to fall to the floor close to the wall. His groupmates assisted him by giving him a drink and helping him cool down. Lacanaria did not pay much attention to what happened and instead instructed the next group to perform. Since he did not feel well, Flores requested that Lacanaria permit him to proceed to the clinic. However, the professor told him, “umupo ka muna dyan, hindi ka pa naman mamamatay.” Regardless, Flores repeated his request.
Lacanaria eventually allowed him to go to the clinic with a classmate but instructed him to return after his consultation. As the doctor was not yet around, the clinic’s nurse told Flores to eat lunch first and return later. Instead, Flores headed home and was eventually brought to the Notre Dame Hospital, where he was diagnosed to have ‘costochondritis and upper respiratory tract infection.’ Flores returned to school and sought Lacanaria to report what had happened to him. However, when Lacanaria saw Flores on the stairs, the former said “Tae mo!” and then left.
Flores then filed a written complaint with the University, which initiated an investigation. Lacanaria also had a prior record of similar transgressions, having been verbally reprimanded in June 2008 and issued a written reprimand in December 2009 for allegedly uttering ‘green jokes’ in class. Lacanaria, in his Answer, said that he found nothing alarming and that Flores was merely covering up his failure to do his part in the performance. He further explained that he said “Tae mo!” with no malice and reasoned that it was not a humiliating statement. After a series of hearings, Lacanaria was effectively dismissed from service by the University.
ISSUE: Whether the petitioner’s wordings and actions constitute serious misconduct.
Ruling
YES. An employer may only dismiss an employee upon just or authorized causes and has the burden to prove that the dismissal was valid. If the employer fails to meet this burden, the conclusion would be that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal.
In this case, the following instances demonstrated how Lacanaria’s misconduct amounted to something grave and not merely trivial, considering his position as a professor:
- he acknowledged that Flores had a persistent cough during the class but shrugged it off;
- he did not act when Flores’ legs gave out and prevented the other students from helping him;
- he dismissed Flores’ condition as an act of pretension, showing that he had no intent to ascertain the well-being of his student;
- he uttered “maupo ka muna dyan, hindi ka pa naman mamamatay” which reeked of insensitivity and lack of empathy;
- he did not immediately allow Flores to go to the clinic despite prior knowledge of Flores’ cough;
- he replied “tae mo!” when Flores tried to explain what happened, which showed tastelessness and unprofessionalism;
- he blamed Flores for attending his class despite knowing that students would normally opt to attend and perform in order not to get a failing grade in spite of sickness;
- he downplayed Flores’ condition in his Answer, stating that the clinic’s nurse only gave Flores a tablet and asked him to go back later since the doctor was unavailable, also notwithstanding the issuance of a medical certificate by the hospital which properly diagnosed Flores with an illness connected to his cough; and
- his comments regarding the video clip exhibited his uncaring attitude and thoughtlessness even though Flores likely needed medical attention at the time.
Indisputably, the incident was associated with Lacanaria’s work as a professor. His actions clearly showed him unfit to continue working for the University, considering his daily interaction with the students. He acted with wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment since his statements were tainted with mockery and insult. He consciously uttered those words with full knowledge that he was conversing with a student whom he exercises authority over. Hence, he failed to display professionalism and decency in dealing with his students.
Due to his shameful behavior, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC additionally considered the principle of “totality of infractions” in ruling that Lacanaria was validly dismissed. The totality of an employee’s infractions is considered and weighed in determining the imposable sanction for the current infraction.” It is undisputed that Lacanaria has been warned in the past, verbally and in writing, as regards his delivery of “green jokes” in class.
Even though Lacanaria was not actually punished for his past infractions, the penalty of dismissal imposed upon him is still valid, given the serious misconduct he committed this time around as part of the university’s management prerogative.