Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 858 views

    Garciano Vs CA PFR Case

    Uploaded by

    Nover Keithley Mente
    Petitioner Esteria F. Garciano was hired to teach but took an indefinite leave of absence. Upon returning, she was informed that her services had been terminated. The Board of Directors then reinstated her but she failed to report back to work in time. She filed a complaint for damages against members of the faculty. The Court of Appeals absolved the respondents, finding the petitioner at fault for her self-inflicted lost earnings by failing to report back to work. Under Article 20 of the Civil Code, damages cannot be awarded for self-inflicted injuries. The petition for reconsideration was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garciano Vs CA PFR Case

    Uploaded by

    Nover Keithley Mente
    858 views1 page
    Petitioner Esteria F. Garciano was hired to teach but took an indefinite leave of absence. Upon returning, she was informed that her services had been terminated. The Board of Directors then reinstated her but she failed to report back to work in time. She filed a complaint for damages against members of the faculty. The Court of Appeals absolved the respondents, finding the petitioner at fault for her self-inflicted lost earnings by failing to report back to work. Under Article 20 of the Civil Code, damages cannot be awarded for self-inflicted injuries. The petition for reconsideration was denied.

    Original Title

    Garciano-vs-CA-PFR-Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Esteria F. Garciano was hired to teach but took an indefinite leave of absence. Upon returning, she was informed that her services had been terminated. The Board of Directors then reinstated her but she failed to report back to work in time. She filed a complaint for damages against members of the faculty. The Court of Appeals absolved the respondents, finding the petitioner at fault for her self-inflicted lost earnings by failing to report back to work. Under Article 20 of the Civil Code, damages cannot be awarded for self-inflicted injuries. The petition for reconsideration was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    858 views1 page

    Garciano Vs CA PFR Case

    Uploaded by

    Nover Keithley Mente
    Petitioner Esteria F. Garciano was hired to teach but took an indefinite leave of absence. Upon returning, she was informed that her services had been terminated. The Board of Directors then reinstated her but she failed to report back to work in time. She filed a complaint for damages against members of the faculty. The Court of Appeals absolved the respondents, finding the petitioner at fault for her self-inflicted lost earnings by failing to report back to work. Under Article 20 of the Civil Code, damages cannot be awarded for self-inflicted injuries. The petition for reconsideration was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Art 20. Can damages be awarded on self-inflicted injuries?

    ESTERIA F. GARCIANO, petitioner,


    vs.
    THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EMERITO LABAJO, LUNISITA MARODA, LALIANA DIONES,
    CANONISA PANINSORO, DIONISIO ROSAL, REMEDIOS GALUSO, FLORDELUNA PETALCORIN,
    MELCHIZEDECH LOON, NORBERTA MARODA and JOSEPH WIERTZ, respondents.

    G.R. No. 96126 August 10, 1992

    CASE DIGEST

    Facts of the Case:

    Petitioner Esteria F. Garciano was hired to teach during the 1981-82 school year in the Immaculate
    Concepcion Institute in the Island of Camotes. Before the school year ended, she applied for an indefinite
    leave of absence because her daughter was taking her to Austria where her daughter was employed.
    Upon her return from Austria she received a letter informing her that her services at the Immaculate
    Concepcion Institute had been terminated with the approval of the president of the school's Board of
    Directors. She made inquiries from the school about the matter and the members of the Board of
    Directors of the school signed a letter notifying her that she was reinstated to report and do her usual
    duties as classroom teacher and that any letter or notice of termination received by her before the date of
    his return has no sanction or authority by the Board of Directors of the institution. The president, vice
    president, secretary, and three members of the Board of Directors resigned their positions from the Board
    for the reason that the ICI faculty has reacted acidly to the Board's deliberations for the reinstatement of
    Mrs. Esteria F. Garciano, thereby questioning the integrity of the Board's decision. On September 3,
    1982, petitioner filed a complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court, Cebu, Branch XI, against Fr.
    Wiertz, Emerito Labajo, and some members of the faculty of the school for discrimination and unjust and
    illegal dismissal. After trial, defendants were ordered to pay Mrs. Esteria F. Garciano for damages. The
    defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court's decision absolving them
    from any liability to Mrs. Esteria F. Garciano. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the
    Court of Appeals denied.

    Issue:

    Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in absolving the private respondents from
    liability by faulting the petitioner for her failure to report back to her work.

    Ruling

    In the case at bar, petitioner is not without fault. She went on an indefinite leave of absence and failed to
    report back in time for the regular opening of classes. Secondly, for reasons known to herself alone, she
    refused to sign a written contract of employment. Lastly, she ignored the Board of Director’s order for her
    to report for work. Consequently, whatever loss she may have incurred in the form of lost earnings was
    self-inflicted, so damages cannot be awarded. On the part of the respondents, they were simply
    exercising their right of free speech or their right to dissent from the Board's decision and they actually did
    nothing to physically prevent her from reassuming her post. Hence, their acts were not contrary to law.
    Under Article 20 of the Civil Code, liability for damages arises only from unlawful, willful or negligent acts
    that are contrary to law. In sum, the Court of Appeals correctly set aside the damages awarded by the
    trial court to the petitioner for they did not have any legal or factual basis.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision of the Court of Appeals is
    AFFIRMED.

    You might also like