Gurong nagpakasal sa estudyante, sinisante

KGG. na Atty. Acosta,

Ako po ay isang dating guro sa high school sa isang pribadong eskwelahan. Niligawan po ako ng isang estudyanteng 18 taong gulang at sa kalaunan ay nahulog ang aking loob sa kanya.

Hindi po mahalaga na 10 taon ang pagitan ng aming mga edad dahil nagmamahalan po kami. Nagpakasal po kami noong isang taon.

Noong nalaman po ng management ng eskwelahan ang aming pagpapakasal, tinanggal po ako bilang isang guro dahil daw po sa immoral conduct kaya nawalan na raw sila ng trust and confidence sa akin bilang isang guro.

Wala naman po kaming masamang ginagawa ng aking asawa kahit noong kami ay magkasintahan pa lamang. Nagmamahalan po kami ng wagas at totoo. Ano pong legal na hakbang ang maipapayo ninyo sa akin?

Lubos na gumagalang,
Lavinia


Dear Lavinia,

Ang Labor Code of the Philippines ang batas na angkop sa inyong sitwasyon. Ayon sa Artikulo 282 ng nasabing batas:

“An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;

(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and

(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.”

Bagama’t isa sa mga rason ang breach of trust upang ma-terminate ang isang empleyado, maaari pa rin kayong maghain ng isang illegal dismissal case laban sa inyong dating employer.

Ang inyong dating employer ang siyang may obligasyon upang patunayan na ang mga akto bago pa naganap ang inyong pagpapakasal ay maituturing na immoral conduct at isang dahilan upang sila ay mawalan ng trust and confidence sa inyo.

Nagkaroon ng diskusyon ang Korte Suprema kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng immoral conduct sa kasong Rene Puse v. Ligaya Puse (G.R. No. 183678, March 15, 2010) na sinipi mula sa kasong Santos, Jr. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 115795, March 6, 1998):

“On the outset, 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. American jurisprudence has defined immorality as a course of conduct which offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and to elevate, x x x Thus, in petitioner’s case, the gravity and seriousness of the charges against him stem from his being a married man and at the same time a teacher. Accordingly, teachers must abide by a standard of personal conduct which not only proscribes the commission of immoral acts, but also prohibits behaviour 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 behaviour amounts to immorality, justifying his termination from employment.”

Sa inyong kaso hindi maituturing na immoral conduct ang inyong pagpapakasal, sapagkat inilahad na ng ating Korte Suprema sa kasong Evelyn Chua-Qua v. Hon. Clave (G.R. No. 49549, 30 August 1990):

“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.
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.” (Binigyan ng diin).

Samakatuwid, ang legalidad ng inyong pagkatanggal ay nakabase sa ebidensya na maaaring isumite ng inyong dating employer at sa pagpapahalaga ng hukuman o korte na didinig sa inyong kaso.

Nawa ay nasagot namin ang inyong mga katanungan.

Maraming salamat po sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

Ang inyo pong lingkod-bayan,

PERSIDA V. RUEDA-ACOSTA
Punong Manananggol Pambayan

Paunawa: Manood ng “Public Atorni: Asunto o Areglo” mula Lunes hanggang Biyernes, 7 ng gabi, sa Aksyon TV. Makinig sa “Abogado ng Bayan” sa Radyo ng Bayan, DZRB, 738 khz AM band, 6:30 a.m. mula Lunes hanggang Biyernes.

Isangguni ang iba pa ninyong usaping legal sa aming opisina sa address na nakasaad sa pitak na ito o kaya ipadala ang inyong katanungan sa aming e-mail address: pao_executive@yahoo.com o tumawag sa PAO hotline: 929-9436 local 106 o 107 during office hours; local 159 beyond office hours.

Ang mga serbisyong legal ng PAO gaya ng “legal advice,” court representation, pagsasagawa ng dokumento, notaryo at iba pa ay libre at walang bayad mula sa kliyente ng PAO sang-ayon sa R.A. 9406 (PAO Law). Sang-ayon din sa nasabing batas, ang katunggali o kalaban sa kaso na matatalo ang magbabayad ng attorney’s fee sa PAO para ideposito sa National Treasury.

Maaaring isumbong kay Chief Acosta ang sinumang public attorney o empleyado ng PAO na manghihingi o tatanggap ng salapi mula sa kliyente ng PAO sa address na ito: 5th Floor, DOJ Agencies Building, NIA Road corner East Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City, 1104.