MICHELLE P.

TRANGIA

(1) A decided case on immorality of a public-school teacher

By Toni Umali, Esq.

-
JUNE 7, 2015

127289
A MEDIA person asks me whether her friend, who is a wife of a public-school teacher, could file an
administrative case for immorality against her husband (for having an illicit affair with another and for
abandoning her and/or for not providing support to her and their children). She also asked whether she
could file a case against her husband in the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) to revoke his
license.

I said, “Yes to both.”

This question is similar to the issues involved in the Supreme Court (SC)-decided case of Rene
Puse v. Ligaya Puse, GR No. 183678, March 15, 2010.

The relevant facts of the case (all quoted directly or paraphrased from the SC ruling) are as follows:
Rene Puse is a registered professional teacher stationed at S. Aguirre Elementary School, East District,
Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, while Ligaya Puse is a barangay rural-health midwife assigned at the
Municipal Health Office of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte.
It appears that on January 10, 1992, Rene married Ligaya at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Daet,
Camarines Norte. He had two children with her, and had a church wedding before respondent found out
that petitioner was already married. Ligaya discovered that Rene had previously married a certain Cristina
Pablo Puse at the MTC in Laoag City, Ilocos Norte, on December 27, 1986. Ligaya, likewise, learned that
Rene has already two children with his first wife. Thus, on August 2, 2005, Ligaya filed a letter-complaint
with the director of the PRC, National Capital Region, Manila, through the director, the PRC, Lucena City,
seeking assistance regarding Rene, against whom she had filed a criminal case for “bigamy” and
“abandonment.” Ligaya alleged, among others, that Rene has not been giving her and their children support.
In a letter dated August 16, 2005, the PRC of Lucena City directed Rene to answer the complaint for
immorality and dishonorable conduct filed by Ligaya. Per directive, Rene submitted his compliance, dated
August 31, 2005, denying the charges against him, and stating, among others, that “[n]a ako ay wala ng
balita o komunikasyon sa aking unang asawa at ang paniwala ko ay siya ay patay na at ang aking kasal ay
nawala nang saysay.”

After due consideration of the complaint, affidavits, supporting documents and pleadings filed, the Board
of Professional Teachers, PRC, Lucena City, found a prima facie case for immorality and dishonorable
conduct against Rene. The case was docketed as Adm. Case No. LCN-0016. On February 16, 2007, the
Board of Professional Teachers (BPT), PRC, Manila, found Rene administratively liable of the charges and
revoked his license as a professional teacher. Rene moved for reconsideration of the decision, but his
motion was denied by the BPT per resolution dated July 9, 2007. Rene then filed a petition for review,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100421, before the Court of Appeals (CA) assailing the resolutions dated
February 16, 2007, and July 9, 2007, of the BPT. On March 28, 2008, the CA dismissed Rene’s appeal. On
June 30, 2008, the CA denied Rene’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. Rene then went to the
SC. One of the issues decided by the SC is whether the BPT has jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint
filed by Ligaya against Rene. The relevant portions of the SC decision on the case (all quoted directly or
paraphrased from the SC ruling) are as follows:

On the first issue, petitioner Rene argues that the proper forum to hear and decide the complaint was either
the Civil-Service Commission (CSC), pursuant to CSC Resolution 991936 (Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service); or the Department of Education (DepEd), pursuant to Republic
Act (RA) 4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers). Since the charge was for violation of the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, petitioner contends that the complaint
should have been brought before the CSC.

The SC disagreed with the petitioner on this point. It ruled that an administrative case against a public-
school teacher may be filed before the BPT-PRC, the DepEd or the CSC, which have concurrent jurisdiction
over administrative cases, such as for immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct.
The SC then explained that concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject
matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals. When the law bestows upon a government body
the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction
is exclusive, unless it be proved that another body is, likewise, vested with the same jurisdiction, in which
case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.

The authority to hear and decide administrative cases by the BPT-PRC, the DepEd and the CSC comes
from RA 7836, RA 4670 and Presidential Decree (PD) 807, respectively. The SC mentioned Section 23 of
RA 7836 as the basis for this authority. Here, the BPT is given the power, after due notice and hearing, to
suspend or revoke the certificate of registration of a professional teacher for causes enumerated therein (and
one of the causes enumerated is immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct).

Thus, the SC said that if a complaint is filed under RA 7836, the jurisdiction to hear the same falls with the
BPT-PRC. However, if the complaint against a public-school teacher is filed with the DepEd, then under
Section 9 of RA 4670, or the Magna Carta for Public-School Teachers, the jurisdiction over administrative
cases of public-school teachers is lodged with the investigating committee created pursuant to the said
section, now being implemented by Section 2, Chapter VII of DECS Order 33, Series of 1999, also known
as the DECS Rules of Procedure. A complaint filed under RA 4670 shall be heard by the investigating
committee, which is under the DepEd, as emphasized by the SC.

The SC then explained that as to the CSC, under PD 807, also known as the Civil Service Decree of the
Philippines, particularly Sections 9(j) and 37(a) thereof, the CSC has the power to hear and decide
administrative disciplinary cases instituted directly with it or brought to it on appeal. As the central
personnel agency of the government, the CSC has jurisdiction to supervise and discipline all government
employees, including those employed in government-owned or -controlled corporations with original
charters. Consequently, if civil-service rules and regulations are violated, complaints for said violations
may be filed with the CSC. However, where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body or
agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the
others. Here, it was the BPT, before which respondent filed the complaint, that acquired jurisdiction over
the case and which had the authority to proceed and decide the case to the exclusion of the DepEd and the
CSC.

The SC later on explained why there was substantial evidence to show that petitioner was guilty of immoral
and dishonorable conduct. While Petitioner claims good faith and maintains that he married respondent
with the erroneous belief that his first wife was already deceased, the SC ruled that the issues as to whether
petitioner knew his first wife to be dead and whether respondent knew that petitioner was already married
have been ruled upon by both the BPT and the CA.
The BPT and the appellate court found untenable petitioner’s belief that his first wife was already dead and
that his former marriage was no longer subsisting. For failing to get a court order declaring his first wife
presumptively dead, his marriage to respondent was clearly unlawful and immoral.
In the practice of his profession, he, as a licensed professional teacher, is required to strictly adhere to,
observe and practice the set of ethical and moral principles, standards and values laid down in the aforesaid
code. It is of no moment that he was not yet a teacher when he contracted his second marriage. His good
moral character is a continuing requirement which he must possess if he wants to continue practicing his
noble profession. In the instant case, he failed to abide by the tenets of morality.

Consequently, it is but stating the obvious to assert that teachers must adhere to the exacting standards of
morality and decency. There is no dichotomy of morality. A teacher, both in his official and personal
conduct, must display exemplary behavior. He must freely and willingly accept restrictions on his conduct
that might be viewed irksome by ordinary citizens. In other words, the personal behavior of teachers, in and
outside the classroom, must be beyond reproach.

Accordingly, teachers must abide by a standard of personal conduct which not only proscribes the
commission of immoral acts, but also prohibits behavior creating a suspicion of immorality because of the
harmful impression it might have on the students. Likewise, they must observe a high standard of integrity
and honesty.

From the foregoing, it seems obvious that when a teacher engages in extramarital relationship, especially
when the parties are both married, such behavior amounts to immorality, justifying his termination from
employment.

This column should not be taken as a legal advice applicable to any case as each case, is unique and should
be construed in light of the attending circumstances surrounding such particular case.
Lawyer Toni Umali is the current assistant secretary for Legal and Legislative Affairs of the Department
of Education (DepEd). He is licensed to practice law not only in the Philippines, but also in the state of
California and some federal courts in the US after passing the California State Bar Examinations in 2004.
He has served as a legal consultant to several legislators and local chief executives. As education assistant
secretary, he was instrumental in the passage of the K to 12 law and the issuance of its implementing rules
and regulations. He is also the alternate spokesman of the DepEd.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+PinterestTumblrGoogle GmailWhatsAppKindle ItViberYahoo MailBlogger
PostEvernoteInstapaperLinkedInSMSPrintFriendlyShare723

PREVIOUS ARTICLEZambales honor students get P3.8-M back-to-school assistance

(2)Pasig principal in trouble over fee collection

By: Jovic Yee - Reporter / @jovicyeeINQ

Philippine Daily Inquirer / 07:34 AM January 21, 2016
MANILA, Philippines — A Pasig City school principal is in trouble as more than a hundred of her staff are
calling for her removal, allegedly due to the wrongdoings she has committed over the last two years.

The Rizal High School Teachers Association (RHSTA) is calling for the removal of Virginia Membrebe as
school principal for allegedly violating Republic Act No. 4670, or the “Magna Carta for Teachers.”

Membrebe is being accused by the group of putting them in a “sticky situation” when she made them
“collecting agents” of the P150 fee charged to students for their National Achievement Test (NAT) review.
RHSTA president Glenn Guardiano said that this was in direct violation of the Code of Ethics for Professional
Teachers, which prohibited such action.

ADVERTISEMENT
Asked what the fee was for, Guardiano told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that they had no idea where the
proceeds of the fee went to. He added that it took them two years to speak up against Membrebe, who has
been school principal for almost four years now, because they were “obedient and had hoped that one day the
situation will change.”

But in October 2015, Guardiano claimed that P200 was again asked from the close to 9,000 students for a
stage play. Guardiano said that the play did not push through because of their opposition to it and fees that
have already been collected were returned.

Due to these two cases of what they deemed to be questionable collection of fees, the group filed in late
November a grievance complaint against Membrebe at the Department of Education (DepEd) Pasig Division.
RHS has around 330 teachers and Guardiano said that only more than half of the teachers signed the complaint
because those qualified for promotion “feared a backlash” and others simply had a “debt of gratitude” to
Membrebe.

Parent-Teachers Associations (PTA) normally speak up whenever issues such as these crop up in the school.
In their situation, however, Guardiano claimed that their PTA “allowed for the fees to be collected.”

Guardiano expressed concern, especially in the collection for the NAT fee as this becomes a source of
“discrimination,” since “students who weren’t able to pay up weren’t given test papers during the mock
test.”

Marivic Leaño, DepEd Pasig assistant schools division superintendent officer in charge, said on
Wednesday that the results of the three-member grievance committee hearing the complaint against
Membrebe would release its findings within the month. If the complaint against her were proven true, Leaño
said that Membrebe would be removed from her post and transferred to another school.
Should the committee side with Membrebe, Guardiano vowed to bring the charges up to the regional
division, saying that Membrebe’s presence as school principal “isn’t healthy anymore” for the teachers. He,
however, assured that this matter has not affected the students’ classes. SFM
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to
5 gadgets, listen to the news, download as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.

FROM AROUND THE WEB

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/757385/pasig-principal-in-trouble-over-fee-

collection#ixzz4lRLCb4GG
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

(3)Teachers cannot inflict corporeal punishment

BY THE MANILA TIMES ON AUGUST 4, 2013BENCHPRESS

One morning, the victim, a 14-year-old high-school student, was attending his class at the school basketball
court where the accused, a public school teacher, was also conducting his Music, Arts, Physical Education
and Health class for third year students. Along with some of his classmates, the victim joined the third year
students who were practicing basketball shots. The accused then instructed his class to form two lines. The
victim, thinking that three lines were to be formed, stayed in between the two lines. Without warning, the
accused held his right arm and punched his stomach for failing to follow instructions. As a result, the victim
sustained a contusion hematoma and was confined in the hospital for three days.

The victim filed an administrative complaint against the accused before the Civil Service Commission-
Cordillera Administrative Region (CSC-CAR) and a criminal case before with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) for Less Serious Physical Injury.

Before the CSC-CAR, the accused denied the charges against him and claimed that he had merely scolded
the accused for failing to follow his instructions. He offered sworn statements of other student to prove that
he did not punch the victim.

While the proceedings of the administrative case were ongoing, the RTC found the accused guilty of the
offense of slight physical injury and sentenced him to imprisonment ranging from 11 to 20 days.

The CSC-CAR found him guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him for six (6) months. It held that
the accused clearly transgressed the proper norms of conduct required of a public official aggravated by the
seriousness of the resulting injury.

On appeal before the Civil Service Commission (CSC), the CSC modified the decision of its regional arm.
It found the accused guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed him from the service. It noted that the
accused did not question his conviction for the crime of slight physical injuries, which was based on the
same set of facts and circumstances and involved the same parties and issues.

Because the Court of Appeals sustained the CSC resolution, the accused brought his case to the Supreme
Court (SC). He argued that assuming that he did box the victim, he was not motivated by bad faith to
warrant a finding for grave misconduct. He merely acted on the belief that, as a teacher, he was exercising
authority over the victim in loco parentis, i.e., in place of a parent, and was within his right to discipline his
student.
The SC upheld the finding of grave misconduct, but tempered the penalty to suspension since there was
sufficient provocation on the part of the victim. Section 8, Article VIII of the Code of Ethics of
Professional Teachers provides that “a teacher shall not inflict corporal punishment on offending
learners.”

Held the High Court

Clearly then, [the accused]cannot argue that in punching [the victim], he was exercising his rights as a
teacher in loco parentis to discipline his student. It is beyond cavil that [he], as a public school teacher,
deliberately violated his Code of Ethics. Such violation is a flagrant disregard for the established rule
contained in the said Code tantamount to grave misconduct (Pat-og, Sr. v. Civil Service Commission,
G.R. No. 198755, 5 June 2013, J. Mendoza).