Diaz v Encanto

Encanto et al. (G.R. No. 171303)

Date: January 20, 2016
Ponente: Justice Leonardo-de Castro

Facts:

Petitioner Diaz has been a professor in UP since 16!" #n 1$$, she app%ied for sabbatica%
%ea&e 'ith pay for one year" (he Chair of the )roadcast Depart*ent initia%%y reco**ended
to C+C Dean ncanto that Diazs sabbatica% app%ication be .ranted" (hereafter, ncanto
referr
referred
ed Diazs
Diazs sabbatica
sabbatica%% app%ica
app%ication
tion to the /ecretar
/ecretary
y of U"P", reco**en
reco**endin.
din. its denia%"
denia%"
ncanto a%so reuested the her sa%ary be 'ithhe%d eecti&e Ju%y 1, 1$$ unti% further notice
since her sabbatica% app%ication has not yet been appro&ed and that she did not teach that
se*ester"
n Ju%y 3, 1$$, it 'as reco**ended that Diaz be .ranted a %ea&e 'ithout pay in order to
enab%e the C+C to hire a substitute" (he ne4t day, the U"P"s /ecretary referred to the 5ice-
President for cade*ic airs, the fact of denia% of such sabbatica% reuest, for his o'n
reco**endation to the U"P" President" n Ju%y $, 1$$, bad returned the 7eference /%ip
indicatin. therein
therein that Diaz had pro*ised hi* to put do'n in 'ritin. the historica% bac8drop
to the %atest denia% of her sabbatica% %ea&e, but she did not do so" n Diazs reuest to teach
for that se*ester, the 5ice Chance%%or for cade*ic airs and the 97D Director instructed
ncanto that unti% Prof"
Prof" Diaz ocia%%y reports for duty, acco*p%ishes the Certi;cate of 7eport
for Duty, and the Dean of C+C con;r*s her date of actua% report for duty, she is considered
absent 'ithout ocia% %ea&e"
n <o&e*ber
<o&e*ber $, 1$$, bad,bad, issued
issued a +e*orandu
+e*orandu* * to Diaz to con;r*
con;r* as &a%id
&a%id ncanto
ncantos
s
reason of shorta.e of teachin. sta in denyin. her sabbatica%" Later, he a%so infor*ed Diaz
of her %ac8 of ser&ice durin. the ;rst se*ester of = 1$$-$, hence she is not entit%ed to be
paid" >hi%e Diaz 'as ab%e to teach durin. the second se*ester of = 1$$-$, she 'as not
ab%e to c%ai* her sa%aries for her refusa% to sub*it the 7eport for Duty ?or*"
Diaz instituted a co*p%aint a.ainst U"P",
U"P", bue&a, ncanto, (abu@ara
(abu@ara and bad 'ith the Pasi.
Pasi.
7(C prayin. that the %atter be ad@ud.ed, @oint%y and se&era%%y to pay her da*a.es" /he
c%ai*ed, a*on. others, that
 (hey conspired to.ether as @oint tortfeasors, in not payin. her sa%aries fro* Ju%y 1, 1$$ in
the ;rst se*ester
se*ester of acade*ic
acade*ic year 1$$-$, for the entire period 'hen her sabbatic
sabbatica%
a%
app%ication 'as %eft unreso%&ed, as 'e%% as the sa%aries she earned fro* teachin. in the
second
second se*es
se*ester
ter fro*
fro* <o&e*b
<o&e*ber er 1$$
1$$ to +ay 1$"
1$" /he
/he %i8e'i
%i8e'ise
se c%ai*e
c%ai*edd *ora%
*ora% and
e4e*p%ary da*a.es and attorneys fees" (he 7(C he%d that Diaz 'as entit%ed to a sabbatica%
%ea&e
%ea&e and that
that they
they de%ay
de%ay in the reso%
reso%uti
ution
on of her app%ic
app%icat
ation
ion 'as
'as unreas
unreasona
onab%e
b%e and
unconscionab%e but the C re&ersed it on appea%, ru%in. that there 'as neither ne.%i.ence
nor bad faith in denyin. her app%ication and 'ithho%din. her sa%aries"

#ssue:
#ssue: >hethe
>hetherr or not the respo
responde
ndents
nts acted
acted in bad faith
faith 'hen
'hen they
they reso%
reso%&ed
&ed Diazs
Diazs
app%ication for %ea&e thus entit%in. her to da*a.es

7u%in.: <o, they did not act in bad faith" Diazs co*p%aint for reco&ery of da*a.es before the
7(C 'as based on the a%%e.ed bad faith of the respondents in denyin. her app%ication for
sabbatica% %ea&e vis-à-vis rtic%es 1 and 20 of the Ci&i% Code" A4444 rtic%e 1 of the Ci&i%
Code Bprescribes a pri*ordia% %i*itation on a%% ri.hts by settin. certain standards
standards that *ust
be obser&ed
obser&ed in the e4erci
e4ercise
se thereof
thereof"
" buse
buse of ri.ht
ri.ht under rtic%e 1 e4ists
e4ists 'hen the
fo%%o'in. e%e*ents are present: E1F there is a %e.a% ri.ht or dutyG E2F 'hich is e4ercised in
bad faithG E!F for the so%e intent of pre@udicin. or in@urin. another"
44444
 (he *buds*an and a%% three courts, startin. fro* the 7(C to this Court, ha&e a%ready a%ready
estab%is
estab%ished
hed that a sabbatic
sabbatica%a% %ea&e
%ea&e is not a ri.ht
ri.ht and therefore
therefore petitioner
petitioner Diaz cannot
cannot
de*and its .rant" #t does not *atter that there 'as on%y one reason for the denia% of her
app%ication, as the appro&in. authorities found that such reason 'as enou.h" +oreo&er, not
 on%y the Court of ppea%s but a%so the *buds*an, and this Court, ha&e ru%ed that the
respondents did not act in bad faith 'hen petitioner Diazs sabbatica% %ea&e app%ication 'as
denied" (hose three separate ru%in.s &eri%y *ust be .i&en .reat 'ei.ht in the case at bar"
 (he Court does not ;nd any reason to disre.ard those ;ndin.s, especia%%y 'hen our o'n
perusa% of the e&idence sho'ed no traces of bad faith or *a%ice in the respondents denia% of 
petitioner Diazs app%ication for sabbatica% %ea&e" (hey processed her app%ication in
accordance 'ith their usua% procedure H 'ith *ore %ee'ay, in fact, since petitioner Diaz 'as
.i&en the chance to support her app%ication 'hen she 'as as8ed to sub*it a historica%
bac8.roundG and the denia% 'as based on the reco**endation of 
respondent ncanto, 'ho 'as in the best position to 8no' 'hether petitioner Diazs
app%ication shou%d be .ranted or not"
44444
<e&erthe%ess, on the uestion of 'hether or not there 'as bad faith int he de%ay of the
reso%ution of petitioner Diazs sabbatica% %ea&e app%ication, the Court sti%% ru%es in the
ne.ati&e" B#t is an e%e*entary ru%e in this @urisdiction that .ood faith is presu*ed and that
the burden of pro&in. bad faith rests upon the party a%%e.in. the sa*e" Petitioner Diaz has
fai%ed to pro&e bad faith on the part of the respondents" (here is nothin. in the records to
sho' that the respondents purpose%y de%ayed the reso%ution of her app%ication to pre@udice
and in@ure her" /he has not e&en sho'n that the de%ay of si4 *onths in reso%&in. a sabbatica%
%ea&e app%ication has ne&er happened prior to her case" n the contrary, any de%ay that
occurred 'as due to the fact that petitioner Diazs app%ication for sabbatica% %ea&e did not
fo%%o' the usua% procedureG hence, the processin. of said app%ication too8 ti*e"
44444
Ii&en that the respondents ha&e not abused their ri.hts, they shou%d not be he%d %iab%e for
any da*a.es sustained by petitioner Diaz" B(he %a' aords no re*edy for da*a.es
resu%tin. fro* an act 'hich does not a*ount to a %e.a% 'ron." /ituations %i8e this ha&e been
appropriate%y deno*inated damnum absque injuria" /i*i%ar%y, the Court cannot .rant
petitioner Diazs c%ai* for attorneys fees as no pre*iu* shou%d be p%aced on the ri.ht to
%iti.ate" B&en 'hen a c%ai*ant is co*pe%%ed to %iti.ate or to incur e4penses to protect his
ri.hts, sti%% attorneys fees *ay not be a'arded 'here there is no sucient sho'in. of bad
faith in a partys persistence in a case other than an erroneous con&iction of the
ri.hteousness of his cause"