G.R. No. 157070. January 14, 2005
Posted by: Rianne Fernandez
FACTS:
On October 18, 1982, respondent Acena was appointed as Administrative Officer with permanent status at the Rizal Technological College (RTC), by then President of the College Dr. Lydia Profeta. The former was extended a promotion to be an Associate Professor, and was then designated Acting Administrative Officer but respondent had to reject the promotion. In a written letter to the President of RTC in view of the CSC's Memorandum Circular No. 4 that requires Associate Professors with a Masteral degree and the same was approved. The discrepancy of salaries was also refunded by the petitioner. On March 26, 1986, Estolas was designated OIC in place of Dr. Profeta and on the same year, issued Memorandum Order No. 30 revoking the designation of Acena as Acting Administrative Officer, to which appellant-defendant (now petitioner) Ricardo Salvador was designated in his stead. Acena then filed a civil case of Injucture and Damages enjoining the petitioners, that they be liable of P75,000.00 for moral damages and P10,000.00 as exemplary damages, to which Court of Appeals sided with him. It is also noted that Chairperson of the CSC, Celerina Gotladera, issued an opinion in favor of Acena holding that the latter is still the administrative officer as he was appointed under permanent status and as his appointment as Associate Professor had been withdrawn. Petitioners petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the award of moral and exemplary damages by the Court of Appeals are proper.
HELD:
To resolve said issue, an examination of factual circumstances would be necessary, a task that is clearly beyond this Courts dominium; except:
(1) When the findings are grounded on speculation, surmises or conjectures;(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
(4) When the factual findings of the trial court and appellate courts are conflicting;(5) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, has gone beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(6) When the judgment of the appellate court is premised on a misapprehension of facts or when it has failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered will justify a different conclusion;
(7) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence upon which they are based; and
(8) When findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record
Considering that petitioner Salvador cannot be made liable for moral damages, neither can he answer for exemplary damages, the latter being allowed only in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.
WHEREFORE, premises considered the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 30 May 2002 and its Resolution dated 22 January 2003 are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that only petitioner Josefina V. Estolas is ordered to pay respondent Raymundo Acena the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000) as moral damages and Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) as exemplary damages. With costs.
