Candari, K-Phren

Coquilla, MarisseAnne Elaine

Grino, Princess Izra
Puerin, Jessalyn
1-Viada
Legal Writing MT 6-7 pm; 5-6 pm
July 03, 2015

C A S E

D I G E S T

EVELYN CHUA-QUA, petitioner,

vs.
HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE, in his capacity as Presidential Executive Assistant, and
TAY TUNG HIGH SCHOOL, INC., respondents.

Facts
The case was about the illegal dismissal of a classroom teacher, herein petitioner, Evelyn Chua,
filed by private respondent, Tay Tung High School, Inc. in Bacolod City on the grounds of
immoral conduct by reason of petitioners marriage to her student, Bobby Qua who was fourteen
(14) years younger than her. The school was being granted by the Department of Labor, without
conducting any formal hearing, the clearance to terminate the employment of petitioner. After
then, numerous appeals were made by the petitioner.

The petitioner worked as a teacher in the said school since 1963. During 1976, petitioner was a
Grade VI class adviser where Qua, 16 years old, was enrolled. While giving remedial lessons as

per school policy to Qua, the petitioner and her student became very close and eventually fell in
love. On December 24, 1975, they were married in a civil ceremony in Iloilo City, where
petitioner was thirty (30) years old. Qua, who was then a minor, received the consent and advice
from his mother. Afterwards, Chua and Qua were married in a church wedding on January 10,
1976.

The school filed with the Department of Labor an application for clearance to terminate
petitioners employment on the ground of abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a
dignified school teacher. Petitioner was suspended without pay. Labor Arbiter Jose Aguirre,
without conducting any formal hearing, awarded in favor of the school. Petitioner appealed to the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) claiming denial of due process for not having
been furnished copies of the aforesaid affidavits where the labor arbiter relied to. Subsequently,
NLRC reversed the labor arbiters decision and ordered petitioner's reinstatement with back
wages. This was in turn reversed by the Minister of Labor, but awarding six (6) months salary to
petitioner as financial assistance. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President of the
Philippines, and through Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave, reversed the decision
of the Minister of Labor and ordered petitioner to be reinstated. However, public respondent
reversed his earlier decision and supported petitioners dismissal from work but giving her
separation pay equivalent to her six (6) months salary.

Legal Issue
Whether there is an immoral act which renders the dismissal valid.

Holding
The Supreme Court declared the dismissal illegal. 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.

Reasoning
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.

Policy
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.