University of the East and Dr. Ester Garcia vs. Veronica M. Masangkay and Gertrudo R. Regondola

Plagiarism or academic dishonesty by faculty members, especially when coupled with a sworn certification that the materials are original, constitutes serious misconduct and a just cause for dismissal; and the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply where the subsequent case is not on all fours with the prior case because the parties are not similarly situated.

Respondents Veronica M. Masangkay and Gertrudo R. Regondola were regular faculty members, Associate Professors, and Associate Deans of petitioner University of the East (UE) - Caloocan Campus. They submitted manuals, including Mechanics, Statics, and Dynamics, for temporary adoption as instructional materials, representing themselves as rightful authors together with co-author Adelia F. Rocamora. UE maintained a process for review and approval of such materials through its Textbook Evaluation and Publishing Office and Board of Trustees. A prior related case, University of the East and Dr. Ester Garcia vs. Adelia Rocamora, reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the illegality of Rocamora's dismissal.

Respondents Veronica M. Masangkay and Gertrudo R. Regondola were regular faculty members, Associate Professors, and Associate Deans of petitioner University of the East (UE) - Caloocan Campus prior to their dismissal on November 26, 2007. While holding said positions, they submitted three manuals, namely Mechanics, Statics, and Dynamics, requesting their temporary adoption as instructional materials. They represented themselves to be the rightful authors thereof, together with their co-author Adelia F. Rocamora. Accompanying said requests were certifications under oath, signed by respondents, declaring under pain of perjury that the manuals were entirely original and free from plagiarism.

After review, UE approved the requests for use of said manuals by students of the College of Engineering. Thereafter, petitioners received two complaint-letters via electronic mail from Harry H. Chenoweth and Lucy Singer Block. Chenoweth and Block's father were authors, respectively, of three books: Applied Engineering Mechanics, Engineering Mechanics, 2nd Edition, 1954, and Engineering Mechanics: Statics & Dynamics, 3rd Edition, 1975. They categorically denied giving respondents permission to copy, reproduce, imitate, or alter said books, and asked for assistance from UE to stop the alleged unlawful acts and deal with the academic dishonesty.

Prompted by the seriousness of the allegations, UE investigated the matter. After a thorough evaluation of the alleged plagiarized portions, petitioner conducted an investigation in which respondents actively participated and filed their Answer. Eventually, UE's Board of Trustees issued Resolution No. 2007-11-84 dismissing respondents. Notices of Dismissal effective November 26, 2007 were sent to respondents and Rocamora via registered mail.

Unlike respondents, Rocamora sought reconsideration of the decision to the Board of Trustees. Respondents, however, did not appeal the decision terminating them and instead opted to claim their benefits due them, which consisted of leave credits, sick leave, holiday pay, bonuses, shares in tuition fee increase, COLA, and RATA. For her part, respondent Masangkay requested that a portion of her benefits be applied to her existing car loan. For the amounts that they received, they signed vouchers and pay slips. These were duly acted upon by UE. Rocamora later filed a case against UE for illegal dismissal; eventually reaching the Supreme Court, the illegality of her dismissal was upheld through a resolution in University of the East and Dr. Ester Garcia vs. Adelia Rocamora, G.R. No. 199959, February 6, 2012.

Almost three years after having been dismissed from service and after collecting their accrued benefits, respondents then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on July 20, 2010, docketed as NLRC NCR No. 07-09924-10. The labor arbiter found respondents illegally dismissed. The NLRC reversed and dismissed the complaint. The CA reinstated the labor arbiter's decision, finding that UE failed to prove plagiarism and that the e-mails from Chenoweth and Block were unauthenticated, while the manuals had been approved by TEPO and the Board of Trustees.

• Stare Decisis: Petitioners argued that the instant case cannot be bound by the Rocamora case via application of the doctrine of stare decisis because of substantial differences in Rocamora's situation and in that of respondents, as noted by the NLRC.
• Plagiarism as Serious Misconduct: Petitioners maintained that plagiarism, a form of academic dishonesty, is a serious misconduct that justly warrants respondents' dismissal.
• Damages and Attorney's Fees: Petitioners raised whether the award of damages and attorney's fees has factual and legal basis.

• Just Cause for Dismissal: Whether respondents' misrepresentation, dishonesty, plagiarism and/or copyright infringement, considered academic dishonesty, tantamount to serious misconduct and a just and valid cause for their dismissal.
• Stare Decisis: Whether the CA erroneously applied the principle of stare decisis.
• Reinstatement and Monetary Awards: Whether respondents are entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and other monetary awards despite dismissal for valid cause under the Labor Code.
• Damages and Attorney's Fees: Whether the award of damages and attorney's fees has factual and legal basis.

• Just Cause for Dismissal: Yes. Plagiarism or academic dishonesty, compounded by the sworn certification that the manuals were original, is serious misconduct and a just cause for dismissal; substantial evidence supported the charge.
• Stare Decisis: No. The CA erroneously applied stare decisis because the Rocamora case is not on all fours with the present dispute and respondents are not similarly situated.
• Reinstatement and Monetary Awards: No. Dismissal was for valid cause, and respondents' voluntary acceptance of benefits amounted to waiver; the illegal dismissal complaint was dismissed.
• Damages and Attorney's Fees: No. With the dismissal valid and the complaint dismissed for lack of merit, the awards of damages and attorney's fees have no basis.

• Just Cause for Dismissal: The Court found that respondents plagiarized the works of Chenoweth and Singer. The CA erred in disregarding the evidence because technical rules of evidence are not strictly binding in labor cases; the deciding authority should use every reasonable means to ascertain speedily and objectively the facts. The CA failed to examine the actual text written in the manual and compare the same with the work claimed to have been plagiarized. Review of the records showed that respondents heavily lifted portions of the books. The Faculty Disciplinary Board found that 558 sentences/figures from Singer and 52 sentences and figures from Jensen-Chenoweth were plagiarized and used in respondents' manuals, either verbatim or with modification; respondents did not mention the sources and names of the authors as required by Section 184 of the Intellectual Property Law. Respondents certified under oath that the manuals were entirely original and free from plagiarism. The bulk of the copied text vis-a-vis the certification clearly showed wrongful intent; as principal authors, they knew which portions were truly original and which were not. The highest integrity and morality required of teachers justified dismissal.
• Stare Decisis: The principle of stare decisis requires that once a case has been decided one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided in the same manner. A conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. Where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. The Rocamora case, rendered via a Minute Resolution, was not a precedent because it was not on all fours with the present dispute. Respondents were not similarly situated with Rocamora: (1) respondents categorically represented under oath that the manuals were free from plagiarism, an act in which Rocamora did not participate; (2) respondents benefited financially from the sale of the manuals while Rocamora did not; and (3) respondents acquiesced to UE's decision to terminate their services and claimed the benefits due them. Rocamora, by contrast, opposed her dismissal, invoked denial of due process, denied plagiarism, and sought reconsideration. Thus, the CA erred in relying on Rocamora.
• Reinstatement and Monetary Awards: Because the dismissal was for a valid cause, there was no illegal dismissal. Moreover, rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right to be recognized by law. Waivers in termination disputes are generally looked upon with disfavor and are commonly ineffective to bar claims for a worker's legal rights if there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or if the terms of settlement are unconscionable. But not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid; if the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding. Here, no reason existed to rule that respondents did not waive their right to contest UE's decision. Their actuations after termination showed amenability to UE's decision. There was no unwillingness, lack of cooperation, coercion, or intimidation. Respondents and UE did not stand on unequal footing, and there was no showing that respondents received less than what was legally due them. Their acceptance of UE's decision was voluntary and with full understanding, tantamount to a waiver. Their filing of the complaint almost three years later was a mere afterthought inspired by their colleague's victory.
• Damages and Attorney's Fees: The Court did not separately elaborate on this issue. The dispositive portion dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal for lack of merit, which necessarily removes the labor arbiter's awards of damages and attorney's fees that the CA had reinstated.

• Stare Decisis — Once a case has been decided one way, any other case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided in the same manner. A conclusion reached in one case should be applied to those that follow if the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different. Where the same questions relating to the same event have been put forward by parties similarly situated as in a previous case litigated and decided by a competent court, the rule bars any attempt to relitigate the same issue. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the Rocamora case was not stare decisis because respondents were not similarly situated with Rocamora: respondents made sworn certifications, benefited financially, and acquiesced to dismissal by claiming benefits.
• Plagiarism/Academic Dishonesty as Serious Misconduct — Plagiarism, a form of academic dishonesty, may constitute serious misconduct justifying dismissal, especially for faculty members from whom the highest integrity and morality are required. The Court found that respondents copied large portions of the works of Chenoweth and Singer without properly attributing the copied text and certified under oath that the manuals were entirely original. The bulk of the copied text vis-a-vis the certification clearly showed wrongful intent.
• Waiver of Right to Contest Dismissal / Quitclaims — Rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right to be recognized by law. Waivers in termination disputes are generally disfavored and ineffective to bar claims if wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person or if the terms are unconscionable. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding. The Court applied this doctrine by finding that respondents voluntarily accepted UE's decision and claimed their benefits with full understanding, without coercion or intimidation, and without showing they received less than legally due them.
• Technical Rules of Evidence in Labor Cases — In labor cases, the deciding authority should use every reasonable means to ascertain speedily and objectively the facts, without regard to technicalities of law and procedure. Technical rules of evidence are not strictly binding. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the CA erred in disregarding the evidence presented by petitioners to establish plagiarism merely because the e-mails from Chenoweth and Block were unauthenticated.

• "The principle of stare decisis requires that once a case has been decided one way, the rule is settled that any other case involving exactly the same point at issue should be decided in the same manner." — States the canonical formulation of stare decisis relied upon by the Court in resolving whether the Rocamora case bound the present dispute.
• "Here, We find that the Rocamora case is not on all fours with the present dispute, thereby removing it from the application of the principle of stare decisis." — Expresses the core holding on stare decisis: the prior case was distinguished because the facts and parties were not substantially the same.
• "To this Court, the bulk of the copied text vis-a-vis the said Certification clearly shows wrongful intent on the part of respondents." — Supports the finding of serious misconduct and just cause for dismissal, linking the plagiarism to the sworn certification of originality.
• "In sum, We are of the view that their acceptance of UE's decision is voluntary and with full understanding thereof, tantamount to a waiver of their right to question the management's decision to terminate their services for academic dishonesty." — States the ratio on waiver, holding that respondents' acceptance of termination benefits barred their later illegal dismissal complaint.

• University of the East and Dr. Ester Garcia vs. Adelia Rocamora, G.R. No. 199959, February 6, 2012 — Prior case involving respondents' co-author and the same alleged plagiarism; the CA relied on it as stare decisis, but the Supreme Court distinguished it and held it was not on all fours with the present dispute.
• Petron Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 180385, July 28, 2010, 626 SCRA 100, 122 — Cited for the principle of stare decisis.
• CIR vs. The Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd., G.R. No. 197192, June 4, 2014, citing Chinese Young Men's Christian Association of the Philippine Islands vs. Remington Steel Corporation, 573 Phil. 320, 337 (2008) — Cited for the rule that like cases should be decided alike and that stare decisis bars relitigation where the same questions are raised by similarly situated parties.
• Phil. Employ Services and Resources, Inc. vs. Paramio, G.R. No. 144786, April 15, 2004, 427 SCRA 732, 755 — Cited for the rule on waivers and quitclaims in termination disputes.
• Periquet vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 91298, June 22, 1990, 186 SCRA 724, cited in Goodrich Manufacturing Corporation vs. Ativo, G.R. No. 188002, February 1, 2010, 611 SCRA 261, 266 — Cited for the validity of a waiver voluntarily entered into with full understanding and reasonable consideration.
• Spic N Span Services Corporation vs. Gloria Paje, et al., G.R. No. 174084, August 25, 2010, citing Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 80600, March 21, 1990, 183 SCRA 451 — Cited for the rule that technical rules of evidence are not strictly binding in labor cases.

• Article 6, Civil Code — Rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right to be recognized by law. Applied to uphold respondents' acceptance of termination benefits as a valid waiver of their right to contest dismissal.
• Section 184, Intellectual Property Law — Requires mention of the sources and names of the authors of textbooks from where passages, illustrations, and tables were lifted. Applied to support the finding of plagiarism because respondents failed to attribute the copied portions.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari. The case was filed as a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.

Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Francis H. Jardeleza, Samuel R. Martires, Alexander G. Gesmundo.