Relevant Laws and

Jurisprudence regarding
Teachers
Academic Freedom
GARCIA vs. THE FACULTY ADMISSION
COMMITTEE, LOYOLA SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
The academic freedom expressly granted by the Constitution
to "institutions of higher learning" involves two kinds of
freedom: that which is enjoyed by the university as a
corporate body to determine for itself who may teach, what
may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be
admittedly to study, and that which is accorded to a university
professor to inquire, discover, publish and teach the truth as
he sees it in the field of his competence. Universities and
colleges, the Supreme Court concluded, should not be looked
upon as public utilities devoid of any discretion as to whom to
admit or reject.
Corporal Punishment
BAGAJO vs. MARAVE, and THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES
In the school premises and during school activities and affairs, the teacher
exercises substitute parental authority over the students. (Article 349, Civil
Code.)
More specifically, according to Article 352, "The relations between teacher and
pupil, professor and student, are fixed by government regulations and those of
each school or institution, In no case shall corporal punishment be
countenanced.
Independently of any civil or administrative responsibility for such act she
might be found to have incurred by the proper authorities, the court held that
the teacher is free from criminal liability.
As a matter of law, the teacher did not incur any criminal liability for her act of
whipping her pupil, Wilma, with the bamboo-stick-pointer, in the
circumstances proven in the record.
Special Parental Authority
ST. MARY'S ACADEMY, vs. WILLIAM CARPITANOS and LUCIA S. CARPITANOS,
GUADA DANIEL, JAMES DANIEL II, JAMES DANIEL, SR., and VIVENCIO VILLANUEVA

Under Article 218 of the Family Code, the following shall have
special parental authority over a minor child while under their
supervision, instruction or custody:
1. the school, its administrators and teachers; or
2. the individual, entity or institution engaged in child care.
.This special parental authority and responsibility applies to all
authorized activities, whether inside or outside the premises of the
school, entity or institution. Thus, such authority and responsibility
applies to field trips, excursions and other affairs of the pupils and
students outside the school premises whenever authorized by the
school or its teachers.
Special Parental Authority
ST. MARY'S ACADEMY, vs. WILLIAM CARPITANOS and
LUCIA S. CARPITANOS, GUADA DANIEL, JAMES DANIEL II,
JAMES DANIEL, SR., and VIVENCIO VILLANUEVA

Under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person

under custody is a minor, those exercising special
parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for
damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
unemancipated minor while under their supervision,
instruction, or custody.
However, for a teacher to be liable, there must be a
finding that the act or omission considered as negligent
was the proximate cause of the injury caused because
the negligence must have a causal connection to the
accident.
Teachers Liability
JOSE S. AMADORA et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS
Teachers in general shall be liable for the acts of their students except where the school is technical
in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall be answerable. There is really no
substantial distinction between the academic and the non-academic schools insofar as torts
committed by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over
the students under his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school where he is
teaching.
The student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and
influence of the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has
already ended. As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of
a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the
enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student
privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues.
The teacher-in-charge is the one designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior
to exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned.
It should be noted that the liability imposed by this article is supposed to fall directly on the teacher
or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself.
Teachers Liability
JOSE S. AMADORA et al. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

If at all, the school, whatever its nature, may be held to answer for the acts of
its teachers or even of the head thereof under the general principle of
respondeat superior, but then it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that
it had exercised the diligence of a good father of family.
Such defense is also available to the teacher or the head of the school of arts
and trades directly held to answer for the tort committed by the student. As
long as the defendant can show that he had taken the necessary precautions to
prevent the injury complained of, he can exonerate himself from the liability.
It should be observed that the teacher will be held liable not only when he is
acting in loco parentis (in the place of a parent), for the law does not require
that the offending student be of minority age. Unlike the parent, who will be
liable only if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held answerable by the law
for the act of the student under him regardless of the student's age.
Sexual Harassment
Who are the persons who may be held liable for sexual harassment?
Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by
any employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer,
teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person
who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in
a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or
otherwise requires any sexual favor from another, regardless of
whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is
accepted by the object of said act. Further, any person who directs or
induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as defined in
the law, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another
without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held
liable under the law.
Sexual Harassment
How is Sexual harassment committed in an education or training
environment?
1. Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the
offender;
2. Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is
entrusted to the offender;
3. When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing
grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment of
a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or consideration; or
4. When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or
offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.
Seduction
Revised Penal Code
Art. 337.Qualified seduction. The seduction of a virgin over twelve years and
under eighteen years of age, committed by any person in public authority,
priest, home-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any
capacity, shall be entrusted with the education or custody of the woman
seduced, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon any person who shall
seduce his sister or descendant, whether or not she be a virgin or over eighteen
years of age.
Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction is committed when the offender
has carnal knowledge of any of the persons and under the circumstances
described herein.
Probationary period to
Regularization
A probationary employee is one who, for a given period of time, is on observation,
evaluation and trial during which the Employer determines whether or not he is
qualified for regular employment.
Generally an employee shall be regular after the lapse of probationary period.
Reckoning: from the date of appointment up to the same CALENDAR date of the 6th
month following
However, it is different for probationary private school teachers. According to the
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools for a teacher to be permanent the teacher
must be:
Full time
Rendered 3 consecutive years of service
Service must be satisfactory
Note: To be considered full time, a teacher must have a teaching load of 15-24 units
per semester. A part time teacher will not achieve regularization.
Pay
Regular full-time monthly paid teachers in a private school are entitled to salary and COLA during
semestral break. They are considered as having been placed on forced leave during such break.
Are private school teachers entitled to holiday pay during semestral vacations? What about
Christmas vacation?
No, as far as regular holidays during semestral vacations are concerned. Yes, as far as regular
holidays during Christmas vacation are concerned.
Are hourly-paid teachers entitled to holiday pay?
A school is exempted from paying hourly-paid faculty members their pay for regular
holidays, whether the same be during the regular semesters of the school year or during
semestral, Christmas, or Holy Week vacations.
However, it is liable to pay the faculty members their regular hourly rate on days declared as
special holidays or if, for some reason, classes are called off or shortened for the hours
they are supposed to have taught, whether extensions of class days be ordered or not; and in
case of extensions, said faculty members shall likewise be paid their hourly rates should
they teach during said extensions
Termination for an Authorized
Cause
Authorized Causes
Installation of Labor Saving Devices
Redundancy
Retrenchment to Prevent Losses
Closure
Disease
Procedural Due Process for
Termination based on an
Authorized Cause
30 days prior written notice to each employee
30 days prior written notice to DOLE
Separation pay
Separation Pay
Depends on the authorized cause for termination:

*If the closure is due to serious business losses,

the employer has no obligation to pay the affected
employees separation pay
Termination for a Just Cause
Just Causes
A. Serious Misconduct
B. Willful Disobedience
C. Gross/Habitual Negligence
D. Dishonesty/Fraud
E. Loss of Confidence
F. Commission of Crime
G. Analogous Cases
Procedural Due Process for
Termination based on a Just
Cause
Show Cause Notice
Administrative Hearing
Notice of Decision

* No separation pay unless policy or practice dictates

otherwise
Relationship between Teacher
and Student
Chua-Qua vs. Honoro C. Clave et
al.
Teacher Falling in love with a student, not immoral.
The school failed to show that 30-year old lady teacher took advantage of her position
to court her student (16-year old). The petitioners dismissal was based solely on her
marriage to the student and the imputed charges of abuse, immorality and unethical
conduct were unsubstantiated.
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.
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
teacher.This policy, however, is not at odds with and should not be capitalized
on to defeat the SECURITY OF TENUREgranted by the Constitution to labor.In
termination cases,theburden of provingjust and valid cause for dismissing an
employeerests on the employerand his failure to do so would result in a finding that
the dismissal is unjustified.
Immorality
SANTOS, JR. vs. NLRC, HAGONOY INSTITUTE INC., ITS
DIRECTRESS, MARTA B. ZUNIGA and PRINCIPAL B. BANAG
Section 94 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools:
Section 94. Causes of Terminating Employment. In addition to the just cases enumerated in the Labor Code, the
employment of school personnels, including faculty, may be terminated for any of the following causes:
xxx xxx xxx
E. Disgraceful or immoral conduct.
The school, in justifying the termination of the teacher, contends that being a teacher, he "must live
up to the high moral standards required of his position." In other words, it asserts that its purpose in
dismissing the petitioner was to preserve the respect of the community towards the teachers and to
strengthen the educational system.
It must be stressed that to constitute immorality, the circumstances of each particular case must be
holistically considered and evaluated in light of the prevailing norms of conduct and applicable laws.
Personal behavior of teachers, in and outside the classroom, must be beyond reproach. Accordingly,
teacher 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 extra-marital
relationship, especially when the parties are both married, such behavior amounts to immorality,
justifying his/her termination from employment.
Immorality
Leus v. St. Scholastica
Westgrove
This case involved a private Catholic school and one of its female non-teaching personnel. The employee engaged in
premarital sex, got pregnant out of wedlock, and later married the father of her child. The employer considered this as
serious misconduct and terminated her employment. The school reasoned that engaging in premarital sex and getting
pregnant amounts to a disgraceful and immoral conduct, which is a ground for termination under the 1992 Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools (MPRS).
The Supreme Court ruled that the employees pregnancy out of wedlock was neither disgraceful nor immoral
because the employee and the father of her child were both unmarried and had no impediment to marry each
other. The Supreme Court explained that, in deciding if an act was disgraceful and/or immoral, the
circumstances of each case must be considered and evaluated in light of the prevailing norms of conduct.
These norms, in turn, are determined by public and secular morality -- not religious morality.

Thus, in contemplation of the law, disgraceful or immoral conduct specifically refers to acts which are detrimental or
dangerous to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society, and not to those conducts
prohibited by the beliefs of one religion. The Supreme Court noted that there is no law which prohibits consensual
sexual activity between two unmarried persons, or otherwise penalizes an unwed mother for her sexual
conduct. Hence, even though it is not in accord with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the employees act
was deemed not disgraceful or immoral within the contemplation of the law.
Would the decision be different if the employee was a teacher? No, the court explicitly expressed that premarital
sexual activity between consenting adults without impediment to marry is not immoral in itself. Hence it cannot be a valid
basis of dismissal under MRPS nor the Labor Code.