SITUATIONAL

PROBLEMS

by: Atty. RONA A. ERBON

LEGAL UNIT
DepEd SDO of Rizal
Case 1: While in class, Teacher Mae shouted invectives
against student AAA, such as “hindi ka na naman nag-aaral,
ang tanga tanga mo na nga, ang tamad mo pa! Bobo!”

Case 2: Student BBB was left by her mother who is working

as an OFW abroad. While staying at home with her step-
father, she was sexually molested by the latter.

Case 3: Student YYY pulled the hair of student ZZZ.

Yes, she will be held liable against exploitation of children, an abuse to
children’s status of minority using them for a very wrongful motive and
cause. As reflected in Republic Act No. 7610, Article VI, Section 10,
paragraph (a) states, Any person who shall commit any other acts of
child abuse, cruelty or EXPLOITATION or to be responsible for other
conditions prejudicial to the child's development including those
covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603. This is also in
violation of the DepEd’s Child Protection Policy (CPP).
In addition, she also violated the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers,
article II, section V states, a teacher shall not engage in the promotion of
any POLITICAL, religious, or other partisan interest, and shall not, directly or
indirectly, solicit, require, collect, or receive any money or service or other
valuable material from any person or entity for such purposes.
2. Before the lesson proper started,
teacher Maria conducted a quiz to her
grade-five students, right after the quiz
papers were checked but unfortunately
nobody passed. Teacher Maria got so
angry of why all of them failed the quiz,
scolded them and uttered bad words to
students and forcing them to get
outside the classroom to clean up
outside under the sun. If one of her
students will complain, will she be
sanctioned?
Maria is held liable having unethical behaviour towards students; basically, a teacher
must show full respect with high moral values as a role model to the students. Such
actuation was very contradictory to a picture of a real teacher should be. She must have
acted as a person who is ethical and having moral principles, standard and values
considering the individuals she is molding/dealing with. Speaking of bad words to others
most especially to students is a practice of being immoral, such dealing dehumanizes a
person, and a conflicting principle of what a morally fit person does.
Therefore, she violated Code of Ethics Article II, Section 3 states, In the interest of the
State and of the Filipino people as much as of his own, every teacher shall be physically,
mentally and MORALLY FIT.
Code of Ethics Article XI, Section 3 states, a teacher shall maintain at all times a
dignified personality which could serve as a model worthy of emulation by learners,
peers and all others. In this case, she disgracefully acted as professional and lowered
down her integrity as a teacher.
In addition, forcing students to work out under the sun as a corporal
punishment to the offending learners is a serious violation of laws
concerning Code of Ethics article VIII, section 8 states, A teacher shall not
inflict CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON offending learners nor make deductions
from their scholastic ratings as a punishment for acts which are clearly not
manifestation of poor scholarship.
3. Teacher Maming’s son got sick and
confined in a very expensive hospital.
Her last salary would no longer be
enough to pay the hospital bills, so
she decided to owe money from her
co-teacher, Mira. Months went by;
teacher Maming was not yet able to
pay her borrowed money since his
son was still on recovery. On her long
wait, teacher Mira could no longer
forgo her debtor resulting of her
scandalous act confronting teacher
Maming inside her class. Are both
teachers accountable for their
misconduct? What act/law she
violated?
Both sides face violation of being unethical and a practice of being
unprofessional in the students’ front. Such behaviour is a disgrace towards
competence and integrity of a teacher. Teachers are said to be guides,
facilitator, model and the like but what they display was a picture of
unworthy manner, an attitude that are not worthy to teach children.

Both are facing violation against teacher’s obligations as reflected in BP

232, Chapter 3, and Section 16, Statement No. 4 which states that, a
teacher shall assume the responsibility to maintain and sustain his
professional growth and advancement and maintain professionalism in his
behaviour at all times.
In addition, teacher Mira’s portrayal of disgrace behaviour violates the Code of Ethics
Article III, Section 7 which states that, every teacher shall maintain harmonious and
pleasant personal and official relations with other professionals, with government
officials, and with the people, individually or collectively. She also violated the Code of
Ethics Article XI, Section 2 & 3 stating, (2) a teacher shall place premium upon self-
discipline as the primary principle of personal behaviour in all relationships with others
and in all situations and (3) a teacher shall maintain at all times a dignified personality
which could serve as a model worthy of emulation by learners, peers and all others.

On the other hand, teacher Maming is also liable of violating Code of Ethics Article X,
Section 2, a teacher shall maintain a good reputation with respect to the financial
matters such as in the settlement of his debts and loans in arranging satisfactorily his
private financial affairs.