Legal Rights and Responsibilities of Parents

JULIA L. TAN and JAMES L. TAN

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 97238 July 15, 1991

Facts:

Petitioner Julia L. Tan is an 84-year- old widow and principal of Grace Christian High School offering both
elementary and secondary courses while petitioner James L. Tan is the Administrative Consultant of the
school.

This case arose from the refusal of the petitioners to admit and enroll certain students for the school year
1987-1988 because heated controversies, acts of misbehavior, and a refusal to dialogue with the school
administration led the school authorities to believe that it would be best for all concerned if these children
enrolled in other schools.

Beacuse of this, two separate petitions for mandamus with prayers for preliminary mandatory The
second case which led to the present petition was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-89-2357, was filed by
father Vicente Luy and his daughter Vonette Luy, whowere also petitioners in the first civil case

Issue:

Whether the students involved had the right to enroll in high school of students who graduated from the
elementary department of the same institution.

Held:

Yes. Civil Case No. Q-51039 was filed by Vicente Luy and other parents not only to continue enrolling
their children in the elementary department but also to compel the enrollment of their other children in the
high school department of Grace Christian School. As pointed out by the petitioners, there were eighteen
(18) students involved in Civil Case No. Q- 51039, not eight (8) as stated by the Court of Appeals.
Vonette Luy had two sisters, Vivian Luy and Virna Luy who were high school students and who joined in
the petition. The case involved not only elementary grade but also high school students.

No thinking person can dispute the fact that our country is suffering from the effects of a serious
deterioration of academic and other standards in our educational system. This Court is disturbed by the
big number of candidates taking the bar examinations who, after six (6) years in the elementary grades,
four (4) years in high school, and eight (8) years in college appear to be functionally semi-illiterate judging
from the answers they give to bar examination questions. The same is true of other disciplines,
professions, and occupations. A drastic upgrading of educational standards especially in the elementary
and high school levels is imperative.

It is for the above reason that Government should uphold and encourage schools and colleges which
endeavor to maintain the highest standards of education. We have consistently sustained the rights of
students to legitimately address their grievances both to school authorities, media, and the general public
to the extent of sometimes countenancing uncivil and rowdy behavior. However, we have not hesitated to
strike down violence and anarchy when certain students and their inevitable supporters misuse the grant
of "ordered liberty" mandated by the Constitution. Educators who insist on high standards and who
enforce reasonable rules of discipline deserve support from courts of justice and other branches of
Government.
 Legal Rights and Responsibilities of Faculty and Staff

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY

vs.

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and MARILYN ABUCAY

G.R. No. 80609 August 23, 1988

Facts:

Marlyn Abucay, a line operator for PLDT was accused by private respondents for demanding from them
P3,800 in consideration of her promise to facilitate the approval of their telephone applications. She was
found guilty and was dismissed from service. She then went up to the Minister of Labor Employment,
claiming that she was illegally dismissed. The Minister upheld the company’s decision and the
employee’s complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. The Minister declared that the employee be
awarded financial assistance (one month pay for every year of service Marlyn worked for ten years.)

Petitioner PLDT and private respondent appealed to the NLRC but the commission upheld in toto the
decision of the Minister of Labor and Employment and dismissed the appeals. Petitioner however,
questioned before the SC the validity of the award of separation pay, saying that the awarding of such
was made with gave abuse of discretion. Petitioner conceded that an illegally dismissed employee is
entitled to separation pay and backwages as required by labor laws. However, an employee dismissed for
cause is not entitled to backwages/separation pay/any relief at all because he was dismissed in
accordance with the law. The award is made on the ground of compassion, which cannot be substituted
for the law,and the award puts a premium on dishonesty and encourages corruption.The public
respondent (NLRC), on the other hand, contends that the employee was sufficiently punished with her
dismissal and that the grant of financial assistance is not a reward for her offense. Rather, the payment
only helps her in the loss of her employment.

Issue:

Whether or not the payment of financial assistance to PLDT ’s dismissed employee is justified.

Held:

No. We hold that henceforth separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice only in those
instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those
reflecting on his moral character. Where the reason for the valid dismissal is, for example, habitual
intoxication or an offense involving moral turpitude, like theft or illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker,
the employer may not be required to give the dismissed employee separation pay, or financial assistance,
or whatever other name it is called, on the ground of social justice.
JOSE S. AMADORA, ET. AL.
vs.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988

Facts:

Alfredo Amadora, while in the auditorium of the school, was mortally hit by a gun by Pablito Damon
resulting to the former’s death. Damon was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. The
victim’s parents, herein petitioners, filed a civil action for damages against Colegio de San Jose-
Recoletos, its rectors, high school principal, dean of boys, the physics teacher together with Daffon and 2
other students. Complaints against the students were dropped. Respondent Court absolved the
defendants completely and reversed CFI Cebu’s decision for the following reasons: (1) Since the school
was an academic institution of learning and not a school of arts and trades (2) That students were not in
the custody of the school since the semester has already ended (3) There was no clear identification of
the fatal gun, and (4) In any event, defendants exercised the necessary diligence through enforcement of
the school regulations in maintaining discipline. Petitioners on other other hand claimed their son was
under school custody because he went to school to comply with a requirement for graduation (submission
of Physics reports).

Issue:

Whether or not Collegio de San Jose-Recoletos should be held liable

Held:

No. Art 2180 should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic. Where the school is
academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student
will attach to the teacher in charge of such student, following the first part of the provision. This is the
general rule. In the case of establishments of arts and trades, it is the head thereof, and only he, who
shall be held liable as an exception to the general rule. In other words, teachers in general shall be liable
for the acts of their students except where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head
thereof who shall be answerable. Following the canon ofreddendo singula singulis "teachers" should
apply to the words "pupils and students" and "heads of establishments of arts and trades" to the word
"apprentices."

In sum, the Court finds under the facts as disclosed by the record and in the light of the principles herein
announced that none of the respondents is liable for the injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on Alfredo
Amadora that resulted in the latter's death at the auditorium of the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos. While
the court deeply sympathize with the petitioners over the loss of their son under the tragic circumstances
here related, the court nevertheless are unable to extend them the material relief they seek, as a balm to
their grief, under the law they have invoked. Wherefore, the petition is denied. Collegio San Jose-
Recoletos cannot directly be held liable.
JOSE S. SANTOS, JR.,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HAGONOY INSTITUTE INC.,
G.R. No. 115795 March 6, 1998

Facts:
Petitioner is a married man and is employed as a teacher by private respondent Hagonoy Institute Inc.
from June 1980 until his dismissal on June 1, 1991. Petitioner and Mrs. Arlene T. Martin, also a teacher
employed at Hagonoy Institute, fell in love and had an affair. Private respondent, upon hearing of
circulating rumors among faculty and school officials, of the illicit relationship of petitioner and Mrs. Martin,
advised the latter to take a leave of absence. Mrs. Martin ignored such notice and was henceforth
prevented from entering the campus of private respondent, effectively dismissing her from work. Private
respondent set-up a committee to investigate the veracity of the rumors, after two weeks of investigation,
the illicit relationship of petitioner and Mrs. Martin was confirmed. Petitioner was charged administratively
for immorality and asked to present his side, on May 1991, petitioner was dismissed effective June 1,
1991. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. III,
San Fernando, Pampanga and petitioner’s complaint was dismissed but awarded financial assistance of
PHP 13,750. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter.

Issue:
Whether the illicit relationship between the petitioner and Mrs. Martin be considered immoral as to
constitute a cause for termination under Art. 282 of the Labor Code

Held:
Yes. Court reiterates that to constitute a valid dismissal, two requisites must concur: (a) it must be for any
offense expressed in Art. 282 of the Labor Code, (b) employee must be accorded due process, that is,
the opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself. The circumstance in the present case comes under Art.
282 of the Labor Code.

In addition, Section 94, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, paragraph E, lists “disgraceful or
immoral conduct” as ground for termination. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Art. 68 of the Family Code
enjoins the husband and wife to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render
mutual help and support.” As a teacher, one stands in loco parentis to his students and must therefore act
with a high standard of integrity and honesty. It is settled therefore that a teacher who engages in extra
marital affairs, when both are married, amounts to gross immorality justifying termination from
employment.

“As teacher, (one) serves as an example to his/her pupils xxx. Consequently xxx teachers must adhere to
the exacting standards of morality and decency. xxx 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 xxx the personal behavior of teachers, IN AND OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM,
must be beyond reproach xxx they must observe a high standard of integrity and honesty.”
WILFREDO T. PADILLA

v.

THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and SAN BEDA COLLEGE

G.R. No. 114764 June 13, 1997

Facts:

Petitioner was a faculty member of the College of Arts and Sciences of San Beda College (SBC) from
June 1980 up to his dismissal.

Sometime in November 1983, petitioner approached co-professor Leopoldo Martinez in behalf of his
alleged "nephew," a student by the name of Luis Santos, whom Martinez failed in History I. Petitioner
apparently disagreed with the grading system of Professor Martinez and urged the latter to change the
grade of Santos. On November 10, 1983, an urgent meeting was called to deliberate on Santos' case.
However, prior to said meeting, petitioner initiated a "whispering campaign" among the faculty members
and students who failed in the same subject against Martinez, the obvious purpose of which was to exert
pressure and influence on the latter regarding the proposed changing of the grades.

Petitioner admittedly approached the members of the Dean's Council to lobby for the reconsideration of
Santos' failing grade. In several instances, he also acknowledged that Santos was not actually his
nephew but he said so only to add weight to his request.

On ground of serious misconduct, petitioner's services were terminated on July 23, 1984. In a complaint
for illegal dismissal against SBC, Labor Arbiter found that the petitioner was illegally dismissed. This was
however reversed on appeal by the NLRC

Issue:

Whether the petitioner was guilty of gross serious misconduct which justifies his dismissal

Held:

Yes. It became petitioner's personal crusade to help Santos, which he did not exhibit with the other
students who failed. It further stated, "(a) teacher evaluator can, at best, advise a student as to how he
can finish his course but certainly not to act as his lobbyist." The pressure and influence exerted by
petitioner on his colleague to change a failing grade to a passing one, x x x constitute serious misconduct,
which is a valid ground for dismissing an employee.
ANITA Y. SALAVARRIA

vs.

LETRAN COLLEGE

G.R. No. 110396 September 25, 1998

Facts:
On June 1, 1982, petitioner Anita Y. Salavarria was employed by respondent Colegio de San Juan de
Letran as a teacher in its High School Department. Sometime in the second semester of school year
1990-1991, the second year students of her Religion classes requested her if they could initiate a special
project in lieu of the submission of the required term papers. The students explained that the project
consisted in collecting contributions from each of them, which amount shall be used to purchase religious
articles such as bibles, chalice, crucifix and similar items to be distributed among the several churches in
Metro Manila and nearby rural areas. Furthermore, they claimed that in doing so, it would involve them in
charity work in connection with their lesson on "Love of God and Neighbor" and that such activity would
entail a much lesser expense than the completion of the term papers. After continuous proddings,
petitioner was finally prevailed upon to accede to their proposal.

Even before the project could be executed, however, petitioner received a memorandum dated January
29, 1991 from Assistant Principal Erlinda A. Arguelles, directing her to explain why she should not be
disciplined for violation of a school policy against illegal collections from students. The petitioner was
found guilty of the offense charged and consequently terminated from the service.

In a complaint for illegal dismissal filed by complainant against respondent Letran College, the Labor
Arbiter found her dimissal unlawful. However, the NLRC reversed the decision.

Issue:

Whether the peitioner was illegally dimissed

Held:

No. In the instant case, petitioner's infraction of a school policy warrants her dismissal. Having been
administratively penalized for a similar offense in 1988, petitioner should have been more circumspect in
her actuations of such nature. It hardly needs reminding that, in view of their position and responsibility,
those in the teaching profession must demonstrate a scrupulous regard for rules and policies as befits
those who would be role models for their young charges. If there is one person more knowledgeable of x
x x policy against illegal exactions from students, it would be x x x Salavarria. Hence, regardless of who
initiated the collections, the fact that the same was approved or indorsed by petitioner, made her ‘in effect
the author of the project.’”
ALEJANDRO ESTRADA

vs.

SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR

A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003

Facts:

Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999 in the RTC of Las Pinas City. She has been living with Quilapio,
a man who is not her husband, for more than twenty five years and had a son with him as well.
Respondent’s husband died a year before she entered into the judiciary while Quilapio is still legally
married to another woman.

Complainant Estrada requested the Judge of said RTC to investigate respondent. According to
complainant, respondent should not be allowed to remain employed therein for it will appear as if the
court allows such act.

Respondent claims that their conjugal arrangement is permitted by her religion—the Jehovah’s Witnesses
and the Watch Tower and the Bible Trace Society. They allegedly have a ‘Declaration of Pledging
Faithfulness’ under the approval of their congregation. Such a declaration is effective when legal
impediments render it impossible for a couple to legalize their union.

Issue:

Whether or not the State could penalize respondent for such conjugal arrangement

Held:

No. The State could not penalize respondent for she is exercising her right to freedom of religion. The
free exercise of religion is specifically articulated as one of the fundamental rights in our Constitution. As
Jefferson put it, it is the most inalienable and sacred of human rights. The State’s interest in enforcing its
prohibition cannot be merely abstract or symbolic in order to be sufficiently compelling to outweigh a free
exercise claim. In the case at bar, the State has not evinced any concrete interest in enforcing the
concubinage or bigamy charges against respondent or her partner. Thus the State’s interest only
amounts to the symbolic preservation of an unenforced prohibition. Furthermore, a distinction between
public and secular morality and religious morality should be kept in mind. The jurisdiction of the Court
extends only to public and secular morality.

The Court further states that our Constitution adheres the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room
for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. This benevolent
neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend
compelling state interests. Assuming arguendo that the OSG has proved a compelling state interest, it
has to further demonstrate that the state has used the least intrusive means possible so that the free
exercise is not infringed any more than necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of the state. Thus the
conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized for it constitutes an exemption to the law based on her right to
freedom of religion.
HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

G.R. No. 96681 December 2, 1991

Facts:
Some 800 public school teachers, among them members of MPSTA and ACT undertook "mass concerted
actions" after the protest rally without disrupting classes as a last call for the government to negotiate the
granting of demands had elicited no response from the Secretary of Education. The "mass actions"
consisted in staying away from their classes, converging at the Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering in
peaceable assembly.

TheSecretary of Education issued a return to work in 24 hours or face dismissal and a memorandum
directing the DECS officials and to initiate dismissal proceedings against those who did not comply. After
failure to heed the order, the CHR complainant (private respondents) were administratively charged and
preventively suspended for 90 days. The private respondents moved "for suspension of the administrative
proceedings pending resolution by the Supreme Court of their application for issuance of an injunctive
writ/temporary restraining order. The motion was denied. The respondent staged a walkout. The case
was eventually decided ordering the dismissal of Esber and suspension of others. The petition for
certiorari in RTC was dismissed. Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court was also denied.

Respondent complainant filed a complaint on the Commission of Human Rights alleging they were denied
due process and dismissed without due notice. The Commission issued an order to Cariño to appear and
enlighten the commission so that they can be accordingly guided in its investigation and resolution of the
matter.

Cariño filed a petition to Supreme Court for certiorari and prohibition whether the Commission has the
jurisdiction to try and decide on the issue regarding denial of due process and whether or not grievances
justify their mass action or strike.

Issue:
Whether Commission on have jurisdiction to adjudicate, try and hear the issue

Held:
No. The Court declares the Commission on Human Rights to have no such power. The most that may be
conceded to the Commission in the way of adjudicative power is that it may investigate. But fact finding is
not adjudication, and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or even a quasi-judicial
agency or official. The Constitution clearly and categorically grants to the Commission the power
to investigate all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. It does not however
grant it the power to resolve issues. The Commission on Human Rights, having merely the power "to
investigate," cannot and should not "try and resolve on the merits" of the matters involved. These are
matters within the original jurisdiction of the Secretary of Education and within the appellate jurisdiction of
the Civil Service Commission and lastly, the Supreme Court.

The petition is granted and respondent Commission on Human Rights and the Chairman and Members
thereof are prohibited "to hear and resolve the case on the merits."
RENE VENTENILLA PUSE

vs.

LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE

G.R. No. 183678 March 15, 2010

Facts:

Rene V. Puse, a registered Professional Teacher, married Ligaya Delos-Santos on January 10, 1992. He
had two children with her.

When Ligaya learned of Rene's deception regarding his marital status, she filed a criminal case for
bigamy against her husband before the MTC of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte. On August 2, 2005,
she filed a letter-complaint with the Director of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), National
Capital Region, Manila, through the Director, PRC, Lucena City, seeking assistance regarding her
husband against whom she had filed a criminal case for “Bigamy” and “Abandonment.”

Rene reiterated the arguments in his Answer and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground
that it was not verified and for failure of the respondent to attach a valid certification against forum-
shopping. He argued that the proper forum to hear and decide the complaint was either the CSC pursuant
to CSC Resolution No. 991936 (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service) or the DepEd
pursuant to Rep. Act No. 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, the complaint
should have been brought before the CSC.

On 16 February 2007, the Board of Professional Teachers (Board), PRC, Manila, found Rene
administratively liable of the charges and revoked his license as a Professional Teacher. Rene moved for
reconsideration of motion but was denied by the Board. He then filed a petition for review before the CA.
CA denied the Rene's appeal. CA held that the applicable law was Rep. Act No. 4670 or the Magna Carta
for Public School Teachers because he is a Teacher I. Under Rep. Act No. 4670, the one (1) tasked to
investigate the complaint was the Board of Professional Teachers. It was the Board of Professional
Teachers that had jurisdiction over the administrative case and not the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
or the Department of Education (DepEd) as contended by Rene.

Issue:

Whether or not the Board of Professional Teachers have jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint
filed by respondent against petitioner.

Held:

Yes. An administrative case against a public school teacher may be filed before the Board of Professional
Teachers-PRC, the DepEd or the CSC, which have concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases such
as for immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct. 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 Board of Professional Teachers-PRC, DepEd
and the CSC comes from Rep. Act No. 7836, Rep. Act No. 4670 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807,
respectively.

Under Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7836, the Board 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.
Among the causes is immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct. Thus, if a complaint is filed under
Rep. Act No. 7836, the jurisdiction to hear the same falls with the Board of Professional Teachers-PRC.

If the complaint against a public school teacher is filed with the DepEd, then under Section 9 of Rep. Act
No. 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 said section, now
being implemented by Section 2, Chapter VII of DECS Order No. 33, S. 1999, also known as the DECS
Rules of Procedure. A complaint filed under Rep. Act No. 4670 shall be heard by the investigating
committee which is under the DepEd.

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
Board of Professional Teachers, 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.