A decided case on immorality of a public-school teacher.

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.”
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.

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.

References:
https://businessmirror.com.ph/2015/06/07/a-decided-case-on-immorality-of-a-public-
school-teacher/