FACTS: Respondent Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT) through its Committee on Decorum and Investigation placed petitioner Gatbonton, an associate professor of MIT, under a 30-day preventive suspension pending investigation of the complaint filed against petitioner by a civil engineering student for unfair/unjust grading system, sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming of an academician. Petitioner filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal suspension, damages and attorney’s fees.
Petitioner questioned the validity of the administrative proceedings with the RTC Manila in a petition for certiorari, which was terminated upon a compromise agreement. Respondent MIT agreed to publish in the school organ the rules and regulations implementing Republic Act No. 7877 (R.A. No. 7877) or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act; and disregard the previous administrative proceedings and conduct anew an investigation on the charges against petitioner. Petitioner agreed to recognize the validity of the published rules and regulations, as well as the authority of respondent to investigate, hear and decide the administrative case against him.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that petitioner’s 30-day preventive suspension is illegal. Respondents are directed to pay his wages during the period of his preventive suspension.
On appeal to the NLRC, petitioner questioned the dismissal of his claim for damages. The LA’s Decision was set aside.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari to the CA, which denied the same.
ISSUE: Whether Mapua’s Rules and Regulations, which was published only on February 23, 1999 applies to petitioner, who was meted preventive suspension on January 11, 1999.
RULING: No. Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws.In Tañada vs. Tuvera, it was ruled that, “all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity is fixed by the legislature.
Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers whenever the same are validly delegated by the legislature or, at present, directly conferred by the Constitution. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant also to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, that is, regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.
In this case, the Mapua Rules is one of those issuances that should be published for its effectivity, since its purpose is to enforce and implement R.A. No. 7877, which is a law of general application.
Consequently, respondent MIT acted in bad faith or in a wanton or fraudulent manner in preventively suspending petitioner, thus, the Labor Arbiter was correct in not awarding any damages in favor of petitioner.
