G.R. No. 96126 August 10, 1992 would accept the position without a written contract (Exhs.

t the position without a written contract (Exhs. C and 1). Upon

her return from Austria in the later part of June, 1982, she received the
ESTERIA F. GARCIANO, petitioner, letter informing her that her services at the Immaculate Concepcion
vs. Institute had been terminated. She made inquiries from the school about
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, EMERITO LABAJO, LUNISITA the matter and, on July 7, 1982, the members of the Board of Directors of
MARODA, LALIANA DIONES, CANONISA PANINSORO, DIONISIO the school, with the exception of Fr. Joseph Wiertz, signed a letter
ROSAL, REMEDIOS GALUSO, FLORDELUNA PETALCORIN, notifying her that she was "reinstated to report and do your usual duties as
MELCHIZEDECH LOON, NORBERTA MARODA and JOSEPH Classroom Teacher . . . effective July 5, 1982," and that "any letter or
WIERTZ, respondents. notice of termination received by you before this date has no sanction or
authority by the Board of Directors of this Institution, therefore it is
declared null and void . . ." (Exhs. D and 2).
Basilio E. Duaban for petitioner.

On July 9, 1982, the president, vice president, secretary, and three

Julius Z. Neri for private respondent.
members of the Board of Directors, out of a membership of nine (9),
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
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.: decision" (Exh. E).

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals On September 3, 1982, petitioner filed a complaint for damages in the
dismissing the complaint for damages filed by the petitioner against the Regional Trial Court, Cebu, Branch XI, against Fr. Wiertz, Emerito Labajo,
private respondents. and some members of the faculty of the school for discrimination and
unjust and illegal dismissal.
The petitioner was hired to teach during the 1981-82 school year in the
Immaculate Concepcion Institute in the Island of Camotes. On January 13, After trial, the lower court rendered a decision on August 30, 1985,
1982, or before the school year ended, she applied for an indefinite leave ordering the defendants jointly and severally to pay her P200,000 as moral
of absence because her daughter was taking her to Austria where her damages, P50,000 exemplary damages, P32,400 as lost earnings for nine
daughter was employed (Exh. B). The application was recommended for years, and P10,000 as litigation expenses and attorney's fees.
approval by the school principal, Emerito O. Labajo, and approved by the
President of the school's Board of Directors (Exh. B-1).
The defendants (now private respondents) appealed to the Court of
Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 10692), which on August 30, 1990 reversed the
On June 1, 1982, Emerito Labajo addressed a letter to the petitioner trial court's decision thus:
through her husband, Sotero Garciano (for she was still abroad), informing
her of the decision of Fr. Joseph Wiertz, the school's founder, concurred in
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed,
by the president of the Parent-Teachers Association and the school
the complaint is dismissed, and defendants-appellants are
faculty, to terminate her services as a member of the teaching staff
absolved from any liability to plaintiff-appellee. With costs
because of: (1) the absence of any written contract of employment
against plaintiff-appellee. (p. 13, Rollo.)
between her and the school due to her refusal to sign one; and (2) the
difficulty of getting a substitute for her on a temporary basis as no one
The plaintiff-appellee (now petitioner) filed a motion for reconsideration prestige. It would appear, therefore, that plaintiff-appellee
which the Court of Appeals denied on October 26, 1990. Hence, this voluntarily desisted from her teaching job in the school
petition for review wherein the lone error assigned by petitioner reads: and has no right to recover damages from defendants-
appellants. (p. 13, Rollo.)
Respondent Court of Appeals gravely erred in absolving
the private respondents from liability by faulting the Liability for damages under Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code arises
petitioner for her failure to report back to her work. (p. only from unlawful, willful or negligent acts that are contrary to law, or
6, Rollo.) morals, good customs or public policy.

After a careful perusal of the petition and the respondents' comments, the Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
Court resolved to deny the petition for lack of merit. and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
The board of directors of the Immaculate Concepcion Institute, which
alone possesses the authority to hire and fire teachers and other Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
employees of the school, did not dismiss the petitioner. It in fact directed negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the
her to report for work. While the private respondents sent her a letter of latter for the same.
termination through her husband, they admittedly had no authority to do
so. As the Court of Appeals aptly observed: Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
We agree with defendants-appellants, however, that they customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
should not have been held liable to plaintiff-appellee for the damage.
damages. Defendants-appellants had no authority to
dismiss plaintiff-appellee and the latter was aware of this. The Court of Appeals was correct in finding that petitioner's discontinuance
Hence, the letter of termination sent to her through her from teaching was her own choice. While the respondents admittedly
husband (Exhs. C and 1) by defendants-appellants had no wanted her service terminated, they actually did nothing to physically
legal effect whatsoever. It did not effectively prevent her prevent her from reassuming her post, as ordered by the school's Board of
from reporting for work. What is more, it was subsequently Directors. That the school principal and Fr. Wiertz disagreed with the
repudiated by the Board of Directors which directed her to Board's decision to retain her, and some teachers allegedly threatened to
report for work. (Exhs. D and 2) There was, therefore, no resign en masse, even if true, did not make them liable to her for
reason why she did not continue with her teaching in the damages. They were simply exercising their right of free speech or their
school. No evidence had been presented to show that right to dissent from the Board's decision. Their acts were not contrary to
defendants-appellants prevented her from reporting for law, morals, good customs or public policy. They did not "illegally dismiss"
work. The fact that defendants-appellants had "acidly" her for the Board's decision to retain her prevailed. She was ordered to
received the action of the Board of Directors repudiating report for work on July 5, 1982, but she did not comply with that order.
their decision to terminate plaintiff-appellee is not proof Consequently, whatever loss she may have incurred in the form of lost
that defendants-appellants had effectively and physically earnings was self-inflicted. Volenti non fit injuria.
prevented plaintiff-appellee from resuming her post. It was
nothing more than a reaction to what defendants- With respect to petitioner's claim for moral damages, the right to recover
appellants perceived as an affront to their collective them under Article 21 is based on equity, and he who comes to court to
demand equity, must come with clean hands. Article 21 should be
construed as granting the right to recover damages to injured persons who
are not themselves at fault (Mabutas vs. Calapan Electric Co. [CA] 50 OG
5828, cited in Padilla, Civil Code Annotated, Vol. 1, 1975 Ed., p. 87). Moral
damages are recoverable only if the case falls under Article 2219 in
relation to Article 21 (Flordelis vs. Mar, 114 SCRA 41). In the case at bar,
petitioners is not without fault. Firstly, 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
Directors' order for her to report for duty on July 5, 1982.

The trial court's award of exemplary damages to her was not justified for
she is not entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages. (Art.
2234, Civil Code).

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.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz , Medialdea and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.