A truly remarkable case wherein the Supreme Court
ruled in favor of “love”. The
setting of the case was in when marriage
between minors was still legal, way before the Family Code. In this case, a 30
year old teacher had married her student which prompted the school to terminate
her. And against all odds the Supreme Court Ruled in favor of her, hence, creating
this Landmark Case. “truism that the
heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know.”
Get Paid To Use Facebook, Twitter And Youtube --- Interested? Then, Click the LINK.
CHUA – QUA vs.
CLAVE G.R. No. L-49549 August 30, 1990
Digested Case
A Landmark Case
FACTS:
FACTS:
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.
The case was about an affair and marriage of 30 years
old teacher Evelyn Chua in Tay Tung High School in Bacolod City to her 16 years
old student. The petitioner teacher was suspended without pay and was
terminated of his employment “for Abusive and Unethical Conduct Unbecoming of a
Dignified School Teacher” which was filed by a public respondent as a clearance
for termination.
ISSUE:
Was her dismissal valid?
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?
ISSUE:
Was her dismissal valid?
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?
You CAN Get Her Back
Win HIM / HER back! Click this LINK to learn more. This will teach you a Technique To Compel Your Ex To Fall Back In Love With You Again
The Supreme Court declared the dismissal illegal saying:
“Private respondent [the school] utterly failed to
show that petitioner [30-year old lady teacher] took advantage of her position
to court her student [16-year old]. 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.”
Finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of 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. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.
