When you thought that there is no happy ending in a love story regarding law, here is a landmark case about a
teacher married her student and got fired. The Supreme Court, quoting
"The heart has reasons of its own which reason itself does not know,"
took her side!
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 49549 August 30, 1990EVELYN CHUA-QUA, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE, in his capacity as Presidential Executive Assistant, and TAY TUNG HIGH SCHOOL, INC., respondents.
William C. Gunitang and Jaime Opinion for petitioner.
Laogan Law Offices for private respondent.
REGALADO, J.:
This
would have been just another illegal dismissal case were it not for the
controversial and unique situation that the marriage of herein
petitioner, then a classroom teacher, to her student who was fourteen
(14) years her junior, was considered by the school authorities as
sufficient basis for terminating her services.
Private respondent Tay Tung High School, Inc. is an
educational institution in Bacolod City. Petitioner had been employed
therein as a teacher since 1963 and, in 1976 when this dispute arose,
was the class adviser in the sixth grade where one Bobby Qua was
enrolled. Since it was the policy of the school to extend remedial
instructions to its students, Bobby Qua was imparted such instructions
in school by petitioner. 1 In
the course thereof, the couple fell in love and on December 24, 1975,
they got married in a civil ceremony solemnized in Iloilo City by Hon.
Cornelio G. Lazaro, City Judge of Iloilo. 2
Petitioner was then thirty (30) years of age but Bobby Qua being
sixteen (16) years old, consent and advice to the marriage was given by
his mother, Mrs. Concepcion Ong. 3 Their
marriage was ratified in accordance with the rites of their religion in
a church wedding solemnized by Fr. Nick Melicor at Bacolod City on
January 10, 1976. 4
On
February 4, 1976, private respondent filed with the sub-regional office
of the Department of Labor at Bacolod City an application for clearance
to terminate the employment of petitioner on the following ground: "For
abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher
and that her continued employment is inimical to the best interest, and
would downgrade the high moral values, of the school." 5
Petitioner was placed under suspension without pay on March 12, 1976. 6
Executive Labor Arbiter Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. of the National Labor
Relations Commission, Bacolod City, to whom the case was certified for
resolution, required the parties to submit their position papers and
supporting evidence. Affidavits 7
were submitted by private respondent to bolster its contention that
petitioner, "defying all standards of decency, recklessly took advantage
of her position as school teacher, lured a Grade VI boy under her
advisory section and 15 years her junior into an amorous relation." 8 More
specifically, private respondent raised issues on the fact that
petitioner stayed alone with Bobby Qua in the classroom after school
hours when everybody had gone home, with one door allegedly locked and
the other slightly open.
On September 17, 1976, Executive Labor Arbiter Jose
Y. Aguirre, Jr., without conducting any formal hearing, rendered an
"Award" in NLRC Case No. 956 in favor of private respondent granting the
clearance to terminate the employment of petitioner. It was held
therein that —
The affidavits . . . although self-serving but were
never disputed by the respondent pointed out that before the marriage of
respondent to Bobby Qua, fourteen (14) years her junior and during her
employment with petitioner, an amorous relationship existed between
them. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the undisputed written
testimonies of several witnesses convincingly picture the circumstances
under which such amorous relationship was manifested within the
premises of the school, inside the classroom, and within the sight of
some employees. While no direct evidences have been introduced to show
that immoral acts were committed during these times, it is however
enough for a sane and credible mind to imagine and conclude what
transpired and took place during these times. . . . 9
Petitioner, however, denied having received any copy of the affidavits referred to. 10
On
October 7, 1976, petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations
Commission claiming denial of due process for not having been furnished
copies of the aforesaid affidavits relied on by the labor arbiter. She
further contended that there was nothing immoral, nor was it abusive and
unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher, for a
teacher to enter into lawful wedlock with her student. 11
On
December 27, 1976, the National Labor Relations Commission unanimously
reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision and ordered petitioner's
reinstatement with backwages, with the following specific findings:
Affiant Maselliones deposed and said that he saw
appellant and Qua sitting on the student desk inside a classroom after
classes. The depositions of affiants Despi and Chin are of the same
tenor. No statements whatever were sworn by them that they were
eyewitnesses to immoral or scandalous acts.
xxx xxx xxx
Even if we have to strain our sense of moral values
to accommodate the conclusion of the Arbiter, we could not deduce
anything immoral or scandalous about a girl and a boy talking inside a
room after classes with lights on and with the door open.
xxx xxx xxx
Petitioner-appellee naively insisted that the
clearance application was precipitated by immoral acts which did not
lend dignity to the position of appellant. Aside from such gratuitous
assertions of immoral acts or conduct by herein appellant, no evidence
to support such claims was introduced by petitioner-appellee. We
reviewed the the sequence of events from the beginning of the
relationship between appellant Evelyn Chua and Bobby Qua up to the date
of the filing of the present application for clearance in search of
evidence that could have proved detrimental to the image and dignity of
the school but none has come to our attention. . . . 12
The
case was elevated by private respondent to the Minister of Labor who,
on March 30, 1977, reversed the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission. The petitioner was, however, awarded six (6) months salary
as financial assistance. 13
On May 20, 1977, petitioner appealed the said decision to the Office of the President of the Philippines. 14 After
the corresponding exchanges, on September 1, 1978 said office, through
Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave, rendered its decision
reversing the appealed decision. Private respondent was ordered to
reinstate petitioner to her former position without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and with full back wages from the time she
was not allowed to work until the date of her actual reinstatement. 15
Having
run the gamut of three prior adjudications of the case with alternating
reversals, one would think that this decision of public respondent
wrote finis to petitioner's calvary. However, in a resolution
dated December 6, 1978, public respondent, acting on a motion for
reconsideration 16 of herein private respondent and despite opposition thereto, 17
reconsidered and modified the aforesaid decision, this time giving due
course to the application of Tay Tung High School, Inc. to terminate the
services of petitioner as classroom teacher but giving her separation
pay equivalent to her six (6) months salary. 18
In
thus reconsidering his earlier decision, public respondent reasoned out
in his manifestation/comment filed on August 14, 1979 in this Court in
the present case:
That this Office did not limit itself to the legal
issues involved in the case, but went further to view the matter from
the standpoint of policy which involves the delicate task of rearing and
educating of children whose interest must be held paramount in the
school community, and on this basis, this Office deemed it wise to
uphold the judgment and action of the school authorities in terminating
the services of a teacher whose actuations and behavior, in the belief
of the school authorities, had spawned ugly rumors that had cast serious
doubts on her integrity, a situation which was considered by them as
not healthy for a school campus, believing that a school teacher should
at all times act with utmost circumspection and conduct herself beyond
reproach and above suspicion; 19
In this petition for certiorari, petitioner relies on the following grounds for the reversal of the aforesaid resolution of public respondent, viz.:
1. The dismissal or termination of petitioner's
employment, despite Tay Tung's claim to the contrary, was actually based
on her marriage with her pupil and is, therefore, illegal.
2. Petitioner's right to due process under the
Constitution was violated when the hearsay affidavits of Laddy
Maselliones, Eleuterio Despi, Pina D. Chiu, and Ong Lee Bing, were
admitted and considered in evidence without presenting the affiants as
witnesses and affording the petitioner the right to confront and
cross-examine them.
3. No sufficient proofs were adduced to show that
petitioner committed serious misconduct or breached the trust reposed on
her by her employer or committed any of the other grounds enumerated in
Article 283 (Now Article 282) of the Labor Code which will justify the
termination of her employment. 20
We
first dispose of petitioner's claim that her right to due process was
violated. We do not agree. There is no denial of due process where a
party was afforded an opportunity to present his side. Also, the
procedure by which issues are resolved based on position papers,
affidavits and other documentary evidence is recognized as not violative
of such right. Moreover, petitioner could have insisted on a hearing to
confront and cross-examine the affiants but she did not do so,
obviously because she was convinced that the case involves a question of
law. Besides, said affidavits were also cited and discussed by her in
the proceedings before the Ministry of Labor.
Now, on the merits. Citing its upright intention to
preserve the respect of the community toward the teachers and to
strengthen the educational system, private respondent submits that
petitioner's actuations as a teacher constitute serious misconduct, if
not an immoral act, a breach of trust and confidence reposed upon her
and, thus, a valid and just ground to terminate her services. It argues
that as a school teacher who exercises substitute parental authority
over her pupils inside the school campus, petitioner had moral
ascendancy over Bobby Qua and, therefore, she must not abuse such
authority and respect extended to her. Furthermore, it charged
petitioner with having allegedly violated the Code of Ethics for
teachers the pertinent provision of which states that a "school official
or teacher should never take advantage of his/her position to court a
pupil or student." 21
On
the other hand, petitioner maintains that there was no ground to
terminate her services as there is nothing wrong with a teacher falling
in love with her pupil and, subsequently, contracting a lawful marriage
with him. She argued that she was dismissed because of her marriage with
Bobby Qua This contention was sustained in the aforesaid decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission thus:
. . . One thing, however, has not escaped our
observation: That the application for clearance was filed only after
more than one month elapsed from the date of appellant's marriage to
Bobby Qua Certainly, such belated application for clearance weakens
instead of strengthening the cause of petitioner-appellee. The alleged
immoral acts transpired before the marriage and if it is these alleged
undignified conduct that triggered the intended separation, then why was
the present application for clearance not filed at that time when the
alleged demoralizing effect was still fresh and abrasive? 22
After
a painstaking perusal of the records, we are of the considered view
that the determination of the legality of the dismissal hinges on the
issue of whether or not there is substantial evidence to prove that the
antecedent facts which culminated in the marriage between petitioner and
her student constitute immorality and/or grave misconduct. To
constitute immorality, the circumstances of each particular case must be
holistically considered and evaluated in the light of prevailing norms
of conduct and the applicable law. Contrary to what petitioner had
insisted on from the very start, what is before us is a factual
question, the resolution of which is better left to the trier of facts.
Considering that there was no formal hearing
conducted, we are constrained to review the factual conclusions arrived
at by public respondent, and to nullify his decision through the
extraordinary writ of certiorari if the same is tainted by absence or
excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The findings of
fact must be supported by substantial evidence; otherwise, this Court is
not bound thereby. 23
We
rule that public respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion. As
vividly and forcefully observed by him in his original decision:
Indeed, the records relied upon by the Acting
Secretary of Labor (actually the records referred to are the affidavits
attached as Annexes "A" to "D" of the position paper dated August 10,
1976 filed by appellee at the arbitration proceedings) in arriving at
his decision are unbelievable and unworthy of credit, leaving many
question unanswered by a rational mind. For one thing, the affidavits
refer to certain times of the day during off school hours when appellant
and her student were found together in one of the classrooms of the
school. But the records of the case present a ready answer: appellant
was giving remedial instruction to her student and the school was the
most convenient place to serve the purpose. What is glaring in the
affidavits is the complete absence of specific immoral acts allegedly
committed by appellant and her student. For another, and very important
at that, the alleged acts complained of invariably happened from
September to December, 1975, but the disciplinenary action imposed by
appellee was sought only in February, 1976, and what is more, the
affidavits were executed only in August, 1976 and from all indications,
were prepared by appellee or its counsel. The affidavits heavily relied
upon by appellee are clearly the product of after-thought. . . . The
action pursued by appellee in dismissing appellant over one month after
her marriage, allegedly based on immoral acts committed even much
earlier, is open to basis of the action sought seriously doubted; on the
question. The basis of the action sought is seriously doubted; on the
contrary, we are more inclined to believe that appellee had certain
selfish, ulterior and undisclosed motives known only to itself. 24
As
earlier stated, from the outset even the labor arbiter conceded that
there was no direct evidence to show that immoral acts were committed.
Nonetheless, indulging in a patently unfair conjecture, he concluded
that "it is however enough for a sane and credible mind to imagine and
conclude what transpired during those times." 25
In reversing his decision, the National Labor Relations Commission
observed that the assertions of immoral acts or conducts are gratuitous
and that there is no direct evidence to support such claim, 26 a finding which herein public respondent himself shared.
We are, therefore, at a loss as to how public respondent could adopt the volte-face in
the questioned resolution, which we hereby reject, despite his prior
trenchant observations hereinbefore quoted. What is revealing however,
is that the reversal of his original decision is inexplicably based on
unsubstantiated surmises and non sequiturs which he incorporated in his assailed resolution in this wise:
. . . While admittedly, no one directly saw Evelyn
Chua and Bobby Qua doing immoral acts inside the classroom it seems
obvious and this Office is convinced that such a happening indeed
transpired within the solitude of the classrom after regular class
hours. The marriage between Evelyn Chua and Bobby Qua is the best proof
which confirms the suspicion that the two indulged in amorous relations
in that place during those times of the day. . . . 27
With
the finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed
immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of the Code of
Ethics governing school teachers would have no basis. Private respondent
utterly failed to show that petitioner took advantage of her position
to court her student. If the two eventually fell in love, despite the
disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance
to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does
not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion
is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the
circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot
be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.
It would seem quite obvious that the avowed policy of
the school in rearing and educating children is being unnecessarily
bannered to justify the dismissal of petitioner. This policy, however,
is not at odds with and should not be capitalized on to defeat the
security of tenure granted by the Constitution to labor. In termination
cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an
employee rests on the employer and his failure to do so would result in a
finding that the dismissal is unjustified.
The charge against petitioner not having been
substantiated, we declare her dismissal as unwarranted and illegal. It
being apparent, however, that the relationship between petitioner and
private respondent has been inevitably and severely strained, we believe
that it would neither be to the interest of the parties nor would any
prudent purpose be served by ordering her reinstatement.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and
the resolution of public respondent, dated December 6, 1978 is ANNULLED
and SET ASIDE. Private respondent Tay Tung High School, Inc. is hereby
ORDERED to pay petitioner backwages equivalent to three (3) years,
without any deduction or qualification, and separation pay in the amount
of one (1) month for every year of service.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera (Chairman), Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.
Sarmiento, J., is on leave.