007 MORENO v.
SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE (PANALIGAN)
2008 March 28 | Chico-Nazario, J. | Security of Tenure
PETITIONER: JACKQUI R. MORENO
RESPONDENT: SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE-RECOLETOS, MANILA
SUMMARY: Moreno was employed as a permanent member of faculty of
SSC-R. During her tenure, it was discovered that she spent a semester
teaching in CEU and 2 academic years and 1 semester in College of the Holy
Spirit while maintaining her full time position in SSC-R. This was prohibited
by SSC-R, which provided in its Faculty Manual that before full-time faculty
can take on additional load during the school year and external teaching
engagements, they must first secure permission from SSC-R. Moreno
admitted to teaching in the said schools when a Special Committee, which
was formed to investigate her case, probed her. She said she needed the extra
income due to dire financial need and that her engagements were merely
transitory in nature. The Committee recommended her dismissal, which was
adopted by the College President. She filed an illegal termination complaint
with NLRC which referred it to the LA. LA dismissed her complaint. NRLC
reversed and ruled in her favor. CA reversed NLRC and reinstated LA
decision finding that her infraction warranted dismissal. Moreno appealed to
the SC raising the issue of WON Moreno should be meted the penalty of
dismissal after admitting to engaging in unauthorized teaching assignments
in other schools, which is expressly prohibited by SSC-R as to its full-time
teaching faculty— NO. The penalty of dismissal is too harsh given the
accompanying circumstances of Moreno’s admission of fault and dire
financial need as well as absence of “wrongful and perverse attitude”
characterizing willfullness. The penalty is reduced to 1 year suspension.
However, since the time in which she was prevented from working already
covered this period, the suspension is deemed served. On the basis of the
evidence on record, the Court finds that Moreno has indeed committed
misconduct against respondent SSCR. Her admitted failure to obtain the
required permission from the school before she engaged in external teaching
engagements is a clear transgression of SSC-R’s policy. However, said
misconduct falls below the required level of gravity that would warrant
dismissal as a penalty. SSC-R failed to prove that Moreno’s misconduct was
induced by a perverse and wrongful intent. It merely anchored her bad faith
on the part that she had full knowledge of the policy violated and that it
would have been easy for her to get permission before teaching in other
schools. The Court finds this argument utterly lacking.
DOCTRINE: Even if dismissal for cause is the prescribed penalty for the
misconduct committed, such prescribed penalty must ultimately not be
disproportionate to the offense. While an employer enjoys a wide latitude of
discretion in the promulgation of policies, rules and regulations on work-
related activities of the employees, those directives, however, must always be
fair and reasonable, and the corresponding penalties, when prescribed, must
be commensurate to the offense involved and to the degree of the infraction.
FACTS:
1. SSC-R is a domestic corporation and education institution. It
employed Moreno as a teaching fellow in 1999. In 2000, she was
appointed as full-time college faculty member. In 2001, she became
a permanent member of faculty and was offered the chairmanship
of the Business Finance & Accountancy Department of her college
in 2002.
2. Reports and rumors started to circulate of Moreno’s unauthorized
external teaching engagements, which reached SSC-R. The HR
department conducted a formal investigation on the issue. In 2002 it
found that Moreno had indeed unauthorized teaching assignments in
CEU for one semester, and College of the Holy Spirit for 2 years and
1 semester.
3. Moreno received a memorandum from the Dean which required her
to explain the reports regarding her engagements. It was alleged that
she violated Section 2.2. of Article II of SSC-R’s Faculty Manual 1.
She admitted her failure to secure permission before teaching in the
other schools, explaining that the nature of such were merely
1
“Administrative permission is required for all full-time faculty members
to teach part-time elsewhere. If ever teaching permission is granted, the total
teaching load should not exceed the maximum allowed by CHED rules and
regulations. Faculty members are required to report all other teaching
assignments elsewhere within two (2) weeks from start of the classes every
semester.”
 transitory in nature as the schools were in need of lecturers and she
needed the extra income to improve her family’s poor financial
conditions. [teaching in other schools was not expressly prohibited;
full-time faculty only needed to secure prior permission from SSC-R
first]
4. SSC-R formed a Special Grievance Committee which asked her a
series of questions pertaining to her teaching engagements. Moreno
admitted that the Dean of the college was aware of her external
teaching loads; that she was indeed teaching part-time in the other
schools; and that she didn’t want to resign because she felt she
deserved a second chance.
5. The Grieveance Committee issued its resolution unanimously finding
that Moreno violated the prohibition against a full-time faculty
having an unauthorized external teaching load. The Committee
recommended her dismissal. The Dean dissented and only called for
suspension but the College President adopted the findings of the
Committee and terminated Moreno.
6. Moreno filed a complaint for illegal termination with the NLRC
which referred her case to the Labor Arbiter. Labor Arbiter
dismissed her complaint for lack of merit and ruled that her due
acceptance of appointment as member of permanent faculty in SSC-
R meant that she was bound to the conditions not to accept any
outside teaching assignments without permission. Her admission of
her violation also rendered her liable for dismissal. Moreno appealed
to NLRC.
7. NRLC reversed the rulings of the LA. NLRC cited as bases for its
evidence other circumstances mitigating Moreno’s liability, such as
the fact that she was consistently ranked among the 5 best teachers in
the yearly evaluation of teachers’ performance, that it was her first
offense in 4 years of employment, and that she candidly admitted her
fault. NLRC found penalty of dismissal too harsh and lowered it to
1-year suspension.
8. SSC-R filed Rule 65 before the CA which granted said petition and
reversed the NLRC decision. CA found that the requisites of willful
disobedience of an employer’s lawful orders were all present in the
case. Hence, Moreno’s appeal to the SC.
ISSUE/s:
1. WON Moreno should be meted the penalty of dismissal after
admitting to engaging in unauthorized teaching assignments in other
schools, which is expressly prohibited by SSC-R as to its full-time
teaching faculty— NO. The penalty of dismissal is too harsh given
the accompanying circumstances of Moreno’s admission of fault and
dire financial need as well as absence of “wrongful and perverse
attitude” characterizing willfullness. The penalty is reduced to 1 year
suspension. However, since the time in which she was prevented
from working already covered this period, the suspension is deemed
served.
RULING: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. S.P. No. 90083 dated 7
November 2006 is hereby REVERSED. Respondent San Sebastian College-
Recoletos, Manila, is hereby ordered to reinstate Petitioner Jackqui R.
Moreno without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. No
pronouncement as to cost. SO ORDERED.
RATIO:
Moreno’s misconduct did not amount to serious misconduct warranting
the penalty of dismissal
1. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Court finds that Moreno has
indeed committed misconduct against respondent SSCR. Her admitted
failure to obtain the required permission from the school before she
engaged in external teaching engagements is a clear transgression of
SSC-R’s policy. However, said misconduct falls below the required level
of gravity that would warrant dismissal as a penalty.
2. Article 282(a) of the Labor Code requires a willful disobedience of the
employer’s lawful orders as a just cause of termination. Two requisites:
a. Employee’s assailed conduct must have been
willful/intentional, the willfulness characterized by a
“wrongful and pervers attitude”;
b. Order violated must have been reasonable, lawful, made
known to employee, and pertains to duties which she has
been engaged to discharge.
3. SSC-R failed to prove that Moreno’s misconduct was induced by a
perverse and wrongful intent. It merely anchored her bad faith on the
part that she had full knowledge of the policy violated and that it
 would have been easy for her to get permission before teaching in 7. Indeed, SSC-R has adequate reasons to impose sanctions on her.
other schools. The Court finds this argument utterly lacking. However, this should not be dismissal from employment. Because of
the serious implications of this penalty, “our Labor Code decrees that
4. In the present case, SSC-R failed to adduce any concrete evidence to an employee cannot be dismissed, except for the most serious
prove that Moreno indeed harbored perverse or corrupt motivations causes.”
in violating the aforesaid school policy.
8. SC holds that Moreno should be reinstated to her former position
The penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the offense committed without loss of seniority rights and other privileges but without
payment of backwages.
1. In addition, even if dismissal for cause is the prescribed penalty for
the misconduct herein committed, in accordance with the SSC-R
Faculty Manual and Moreno’s employment contract, the Court finds
the same to be disproportionate to the offense.

2. Directives by employers must always be fair and reasonable, and the

corresponding penalties commensurate to the offense involved and
degree of infraction.

3. Special circumstances were present in the case at bar which should

have been properly taken into account in the imposition of the
appropriate penalty. Moreno, in this case, had readily admitted her
misconduct, which was undisputedly the first she has ever committed
against the school. Her teaching abilities and administrative skills
remained apparently unaffected by her external teaching
engagements, as she was found by the grievance committee to be one
of the better professors in the Accounting Department and she was
even offered the Chairmanship of her college.

4. Also, the fact that Moreno merely wanted to alleviate her family’s
poor financial conditions is a justification that SSC-R failed to refute.
SSC-R likewise failed to prove any resulting material damage or
prejudice on its part as a consequence of Moreno’s misconduct.

5. In Moreno’s employment contract, in case of any violations of the

terms and conditions, the penalty imposed would either be
suspension or dismissal from employment. Thus, SSC-R clearly had
discretion to impose a lighter penalty of suspension. It was not
compelled to dismiss Moreno under the circumstance just because
the Faculty Manual said so.

6. In sum, Moreno’s dismissal complied with procedural due process,

she having been given the twin-notice requirement, but it failed to
comply with the substantive aspect of due process.