 |
| Credits to the owner of the image. |
Republic of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 49549 August 30, 1990
EVELYN 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 sequiturswhich 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.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, 189.
2 Ibid., 84.
3 Ibid.,
14; Annex A, Petition,
4 Ibid., id.,: Annex B. id.
5 Ibid., id., Annex C, id.
6 Ibid., 43, Annex 1, id.
7 Annexes N-1 to N-4 Petition.
8 Rollo, 15; Annex F, Petition.
9 Rollo, 60-61.
10 Ibid., 74.
11 Ibid., 73-75.
12 Ibid., 85-87.
13 Ibid., 111-114.
14 Ibid,. 115-122.
15 Ibid., 137.
16 Ibid., 138-142.
17 Ibid., 143-144.
18 Ibid., 146.
19 Ibid., 180-181.
20 Ibid., 22.
21 Ibid., 127.
22 Ibid., 87.
23 Llobrera vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al., 162 SCRA 788 (1988).
24 Rollo, 135-136.
25 Ibid., 60-61.
26 Ibid., 86.
27 Ibid., 148.
Source: www.wikipilipinas.org
www.sc.gov.ph
Through Ushare - Credit Card, Online Banking, Megalink
Through GreenPeso - PayPal, Bancnet, GCash
Through PayDollar
