THE LEGAL BASES OF “TEACHERS

AS PERSONS IN AUTHORITY”
•Introduction
•Definitions of “Persons in Authority”
•P in A distinguished from Agents of
Person in Authority
•Original concept of Teachers as
Persons in Authority
•When a Teacher is not deemed a
Person in Authority
•Direct assault differentiated from
resistance and disobedience
•Limitations
INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents a discussion on the

legal bases of “Teachers as Persons in
Authority”. The importance of this dimension
in the life of teachers cannot be
overemphasized. In several instances, the
authority of the teacher had been put to the
limelight.
With this topic is to discuss the legalities
behind the phrase “teachers as persons in
authority”.
DEFINITIONS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
 Under the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines, a person in authority is one
“directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as
an individual or a member of some court or
government corporation, board or commission.”
(article 152, Revised Penal Code).
IN ESSENCE, TEACHERS ARE NOT PERSON IN
AUTHORITY SINCE THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY
VESTED WITH JURISDICTION OR POWER TO
GOVERN AND EXECUTE LAWS. BUT “BY LEGAL
FICTION” BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF
COMMONWEALTH ACT 578 DULY AMENDED BY
ARTICLE 152 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE,
TEACHERS BECAME PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
BY THE PHRASE “DIRECTLY VESTED WITH
JURISDICTION” IS A MEANT THE POWER OR
AUTHORITY TO GOVERN AND EXECUTE THE
LAWS, PARTICULARLY THE AUTHORITY VESTED
IN THE JUDGES TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE, THAT
IS, TRY CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CASES OR BOTH
AND TO RENDER JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAWS (PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA, 59 PHIL.
163).
THE TERM PERSONS INAUTHORITY
ACCORDING TO COURT DECISIONS, ALSO
INCLUDE MUNICIPAL MAYOR, PROVINCIAL
FISCALS, MUNICIPAL COUNCILORS AND
BARANGAY CHAIRMAN
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY DISTINGUISHED
FROM AGENTS OF PERSON IN AUTHORITY
Persons in authority should not be taken to mean
as agents of a person in authority. This is because
an agent of a person in authority is one who, by
“direct provision of law or by election or by
appointment by competent authority is charged
with the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property, such
as barrio policeman and any person who comes to
the aid of persons in authority.”
The following are considered as agents of persons
in authority: policeman, municipal treasurer,
postmaster, rural policeman, sheriff, agent of the
BIR. So when a policeman claims that he is a
person in authority, he is absolutely and legally
wrong because he is just an agent of the persons in
authority.
PERSON IN AUTHORITY AS
DIFFERENTIATED FROM PUBLIC OFFICER

Persons in authority should also be

differentiated from public officer. A
public officer is “any person who, by
direct provision of law, popular elections
or appointment by competent authority,
shall take part in the performance of
public functions in the government of the
Philippines or shall perform in said
government public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official or any rank
or class.” Article 203, Revised Penal Code).
 In essence, therefore, any
person in the government
service is a public officer as
defined. But the important thing
is that he is not necessarily a
person in authority or an agent
thereof.
ORIGINAL CONCEPT OF TEACHERS AS
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY

It is originally conceived that law did

not consider teachers a person in
authority. It was held in People vs.
Mendoza, 59 Phil 163, that when a high
school student slapped his teacher on
the check while she was engaged in the
performance of her duties as a teacher,
the crime committed was only a “light
felony. This offense is punishable by the
imprisonment of not more than 30 days
instead of “assault” upon a person in
authority punishable up to 6 years of
prison correctional.
 What happened, then was that when the
person attacked or slapped or boxed was the
teacher and the attacker was the student or
pupil, the only aggravating circumstance was
that the act was committed with grave insult
or in utter disregard for the respect which
may due the teacher on account of his rank.
This is contained in U.S vs. Cabiling, 7 Phil.
769. By that time, there was no mantle of
protection accorded to teachers.
 From then on, there were several instances of assault
and attacks against teachers, instructors, professors,
and other public and private officials of schools.
 With the passage of Commonwealth Act No. 578 on
June 8, 1940 which amended Article 152 of the RPC,
this picture completely changed.
 With that Act, teachers, professors and the persons
charged with supervision of educational institutions
were raised to the rank of the persons in authority.
 The intent and spirit behind the amendment are very
obvious. They are inherently rooted in the very
person of the teacher who is not merely an
intellectual referee in the intellectual playfield and in
the market of ideas but a person of dignity and
respect.
WHEN A TEACHER IS NOT DEEMED A
“PERSON IN AUTHORITY”
There are instances when the teacher even
while inside the school premises is not
covered by the phrase “person in authority”
•When the teacher goes out of the classroom
to talk to a person on matters not related to
the school or his duties.
•Assault upon a person in authority,
nevertheless, does not consist merely in
attacking or laying hands on the persons in
authority. It also extends to serious
resistance. This means that there is active
resistance or serious intimidation on the
part of the attacker.
TEACHERS AND THEIR SECURITY
OF TENURE: SOME LEGAL BASES

The phrase “ security of tenure” is a

constitution guarantee. The 1987
Philippine Constitution, Article IX, B.
The Civil Service Commission, Sec. 2,
sub section 3 states: No officer or
employee of the civil service shall be
removed or suspended except for
cause provided by law. Sub-section 6
also provides: Temporary employees
of the Government shall be given such
protection as may be provided by law.
THE ESSENCE OF SECURITY OF
TENURE
Professor Vicente G. Sinco in his book Philippine
Political Law, has stated: “Nothing can be more
demoralizing to a group of civil servants than the
fear that they might be removed from their posts
anytime at the pleasure of their superiors.”
Thus , it is essentially true that a demoralized force
is an inefficient force. Security of tenure is a
conditio sine qua non (condition that is
indispensable) for obtaining efficiency and
effectiveness in the Civil Service.
Security of tenure does not only mean that the
employee is protected against illegal dismissal. It is
also guarantees the employees against
unwarranted transfers made without their consent.