ELIZABETH DIAZ VS.

GEORGINA ENCANTO, ERNESTO TABUJARA, GEMINO

ABAD AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR NO. 171303; JANUARY 16, 2006

J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
TOPIC: HUMAN RELATIONS (PRINCIPLE OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS)
FACTS: Plaintiff-Appellant in this case has been in the service of UP for over two decades
as an associate professor in the College of Mass Communication. This case stems when
plantiff filed for sabbatical leave with pay for one (1) year for rest, renew and study. At the
same time, when the application for sabbatical leave was still on process, plaintiff was
deleted in the final schedule of classes for one semester mainly because of her department’s
experience with her who dropped her courses mid semester.
Meanwhile, Respondent Encanto, as the Dean of plaintiff’s department, recommended the
denial of Diaz’s application for sabbatical leave and requested that her salary for the semester
that she will not be teaching to be on hold until further notice. Consequently, Diaz’s name
was deleted in the payroll for the period September 1988 to January 1989.

On Diaz's request to teach for that semester, AY 1988-89, the Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs, Edgardo Pacheco, and the HRDO Director, Atty. Pio Frago, instructed Encanto that
"Until Prof. Diaz officially reports for duty, accomplishes the Certificate of Report for Duty,
and the Dean of CMC confirms her date of actual report for duty, she is considered absent
without official leave (AWOL) for the University."

Diaz then instituted a complaint against herein respondents with the RTC of Pasig praying
that respondents be jointly and severally pay her damages, claiming that respondents
conspired together as joint torfeasors, in not paying her salaries in the 1 st semester of A.Y.
1988-1989, for the entire period when her sabbatical application was left unresolved, as well
as the salaries she earned from teaching in the 2nd semester from November to May 1989.
RTC ruled in favor of Diaz, and ordered herein respondent to pay Diaz her salaries, moral,
exemplary damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
On appeal, CA reversed and set aside and rendered a new judgment ordering respondent to
pay Diaz her unpaid salaries and allowances and deleting the award for moral, exemplary
damages, attorney’s fees and costs of suits, on the ground that there is no negligence nor bad
faith on the part of the respondents in their denial of petitioner’s sabbatical leave application
and in withholding her salaries.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: WON respondents acted in bad faith when they resolved petitioner Diaz’s
application for sabbatical leave and withheld her salaries.
RULING:No. As ruled both by the RTC and CA, the grant of sabbatical leave is not a matter
of right, but a privilege. The denial of petitioner Diaz’s application was a collegial decision
based on UP’s established rules, the grant of which is subject to the exigencies of the service,
like acute shortage in teaching staff. Furthermore, it is unfair to impute negligence to
respondents in the regular discharge of their official functions.
It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction that good faith is presumed and that the burden of
proving bad faith rests upon the party alleging the same." Petitioner Diaz has failed to prove
bad faith on the part of the respondents. There is nothing in the records to show that the
respondents purposely delayed the resolution of her application to prejudice and injure her.
She has not even shown that the delay of six months in resolving a sabbatical leave
application has never happened prior to her case. On the contrary, any delay that occurred
was due to the fact that petitioner Diaz's application for sabbatical leave did not follow the
usual procedure; hence, the processing of said application took time.