FIRST DIVISION
|
RENE
VENTENILLA PUSE, Petitioner,
- versus - LIGAYA DELOS
SANTOS-PUSE, Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 183678 Present: PUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN,
and VILLARAMA,
JR., JJ. Promulgated: March 15, 2010 |
x- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x
VILLARAMA, JR.,
J.:
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
with Prayer for Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by petitioner
Rene V. Puse assailing the Decision[1]
dated
Petitioner is a registered
Professional Teacher stationed at S. Aguirre Elementary School, East District,
Jose Panganiban, Camarines
Norte, while respondent is a Barangay Rural Health
Midwife assigned at the Municipal Health Office of Jose Panganiban,
Camarines Norte.
It
appears that on
Thus, on
In a letter dated
In her Reply to Answer/Compliance[7]
dated
In his Rejoinder[8]
dated
After due consideration of the
complaint, affidavits, supporting documents and pleadings filed, the Board of
Professional Teachers, PRC, Lucena City, found a prima
facie case for Immorality and Dishonorable Conduct against petitioner, and
directed respondent to pay docket and legal research fees.[9] The case was docketed as Adm. Case No. LCN-0016.
On
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Board finds Rene Ventenilla Puse guilty as charged
and accordingly revokes his license as a Professional Teacher. He is ordered to surrender his Certificate of
Registration and his Professional Identification Card to the Professional
Regulation Commission within ten (10) days from the time this decision becomes
final and executory and to desist from the practice
of the teaching profession under the pain of criminal prosecution.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The Board ruled that contrary to
petitioner’s contentions, it had jurisdiction over petitioner and could validly
order the revocation of his license, as petitioner was a professional teacher. Under Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7836,
otherwise known as the Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994,
the Board has the power and authority to regulate the practice of teaching in
the
Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the
decision but his motion was denied by the Board per Resolution dated
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for review, docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 100421, before the Court of Appeals assailing the Resolutions
dated
On
As to petitioner’s defense of pari delicto, the appellate court upheld the Board’s finding that respondent
was in good faith when she married petitioner.
The Board also afforded petitioner due process.
On
Petitioner argues that:
I.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN VALIDATING THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD FOR
PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF PRC-MANILA DESPITE THE LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
SUPPORTING THE SAME AND ITS PATENT NULLITY FOR HAVING BEEN ISSUED OUTSIDE
OF ITS JURISDICTION AND IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF YOUR
PETITIONER TO DUE PROCESS;
II.
THE HONORABLE BOARD FOR
PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC)-MANILA
AND LUCENA CITY, GRAVELY ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, WHEN IT
ASSUMED PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE UNVERIFIED COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT IN CONTRAVENTION WITH EXISTING RULES AND
SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER;
III.
THE HONORABLE BOARD FOR
PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF THE PRC-MANILA GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER
GUILTY OF IMMORALITY AND DISHONORABLE CONDUCT AND SUBSEQUENTLY REVOKING
HIS TEACHER’S LICENSE AS A PENALTY NOTWITHSTANDING THE LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE SUSTAINING THE COMPLAINT, WHICH IN EFFECT
VIOLATED THE RIGHT OF YOUR PETITIONER TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW.[17]
From
the foregoing, the issues may be summed up as follows: (1) Did the Board of
Professional Teachers have jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint filed by respondent against
petitioner? (2) Was petitioner denied
administrative due process? (3) Was
there substantial evidence to sustain the complaint and to hold petitioner liable?
On the first issue, petitioner argues that the proper
forum to hear and decide the complaint was either the CSC pursuant to CSC
Resolution No. 991936 (Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service) or the DepEd pursuant to Rep. Act No. 4670
(Magna Carta for Public School Teachers). Since the charge was for violation of the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the complaint
should have been brought before the CSC.
We do not agree. An
administrative case against a public school teacher may be filed before the
Board of Professional Teachers-PRC, the DepEd or the
CSC, which have concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases such as for
immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct.
Concurrent
jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject matter
at the same time by two or more separate tribunals.[18] When the law bestows upon a government body
the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to
be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that
another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both
bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter.[19] The authority to hear and decide
administrative cases by the Board of Professional Teachers-PRC, DepEd and the CSC comes from Rep. Act No. 7836, Rep. Act
No. 4670 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807, respectively.
Under
Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7836, the Board is given the power, after due notice
and hearing, to suspend or revoke the certificate of registration of a
professional teacher for causes enumerated therein. Among the causes is immoral, unprofessional
or dishonorable conduct. Section 23
reads:
SEC. 23. Revocation of the Certificate of
Registration, Suspension from the Practice of the Teaching Profession, and
Cancellation of Temporary or Special Permit. – The Board
shall have the power, after due notice and hearing, to suspend or revoke the
certificate of registration of any registrant, to reprimand or to cancel
the temporary/special permit of a holder thereof who is exempt from
registration, for any of the following causes:
(a) Conviction for any criminal offense by a court of
competent jurisdiction;
(b) Immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct;
(c) Declaration by a court of competent jurisdiction for
being mentally unsound or insane;
(d) Malpractice, gross incompetence, gross negligence or
serious ignorance of the practice of the teaching profession;
(e) The use of or perpetration of any fraud or deceit in
obtaining a certificate of registration, professional license or
special/temporary permit;
(f) Chronic inebriety or habitual use of drugs;
(g) Violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the rules
and regulations and other policies of the Board and the Commission, and the
code of ethical and professional standards for professional teachers; and
(h) Unjustified or willful failure to attend seminars,
workshops, conferences and the like or the continuing education program
prescribed by the Board and the Commission. x x x[20]
Thus, if a complaint is filed under Rep. Act No. 7836, the
jurisdiction to hear the same falls with the Board of Professional Teachers-PRC.
However,
if the complaint against a public school teacher is filed with the DepEd, then under Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 4670 or the Magna
Carta for Public School Teachers, the
jurisdiction over administrative cases of public school teachers is lodged with
the investigating committee created pursuant to said section, now being
implemented by Section 2, Chapter VII of DECS Order No. 33, S. 1999, also known
as the DECS Rules of Procedure.
Section 9 of the Magna Carta provides:
SEC. 9. Administrative
Charges. – Administrative charges against a teacher shall be heard
initially by a committee composed of the corresponding School Superintendent of
the Division or a duly authorized representative who should at least have the
rank of a division supervisor, where the teacher belongs, as chairman, a representative
of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teachers’
organization and a supervisor of the Division, the last two to be designated by
the Director of Public Schools. The
committee shall submit its findings and recommendations to the Director of
Public Schools within thirty days from the termination of the hearings: Provided,
however, That where the school superintendent is
the complainant or an interested party, all the members of the committee shall
be appointed by the Secretary of Education.
A
complaint filed under Rep. Act No. 4670 shall be heard by the investigating
committee which is under the DepEd.
As
to the CSC, under P.D. No. 807, also known as the Civil Service Decree of
the Philippines, particularly Sections 9(j) and 37(a) thereof, the CSC has
the power to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted
directly with it or brought to it on appeal.
These sections state:
SEC. 9. Powers and Functions of the Commission.–The Commission
shall administer the Civil Service and shall have the following powers and
functions:
x x x
x
(j) Hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases
instituted directly with it in accordance with Section 37 or brought to it on
appeal;
x x x
x
SEC. 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.–(a) The
Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases
involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days,
or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days’ salary, demotion in rank or salary
or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be filed
directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a government official
or employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize
any department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the
investigation. The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the
Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other action
to be taken.
As the central personnel agency of the government, the CSC has
jurisdiction to supervise and discipline all government employees including
those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations with original
charters.[21] Consequently, if civil service rules and
regulations are violated, complaints for said violations may be filed with the CSC.
However, where
concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others.[22] Here, it was the Board of Professional Teachers, before
which respondent filed the complaint, that acquired jurisdiction over the case
and which had the authority to proceed and decide the case to the exclusion of the DepEd and the
CSC.
Petitioner’s
reliance on the cases of Emin v. De Leon[23]
and Office of the Ombudsman v. Estandarte[24]
to support his claim that it was the DepEd Investigating
Committee created pursuant to Rep. Act No. 4670 which had jurisdiction to try
him because he is a public school teacher, is without merit as these cases are not
in point. In Emin, the issue was which between
the DepEd Investigating Committee (under Rep. Act No.
4670) and the CSC (under P.D. No. 807) had jurisdiction to try the
administrative case, while in Estandarte, the issue was which between the Office of the
Ombudsman and the DepEd Investigating Committee had
jurisdiction over the administrative case filed in said case. In contrast, the instant case involves the
Board of Professional Teachers which, under Rep. Act No. 7836, had jurisdiction
over administrative cases against professional teachers and has the power to
suspend and revoke a licensed teacher’s certificate of registration after due
proceedings.
As
to the issue of due process, was petitioner denied administrative due process?
Petitioner
questions the authority of the Board of Professional Teachers-Lucena City to assume jurisdiction over the complaint, arguing
that venue was improperly laid as he and respondent are residents of Parang, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte; they were married in Daet,
Camarines Norte where the alleged immoral and
dishonorable conduct was committed; his professional teacher’s license was
issued in the Central Office of the PRC in Manila and renewed in the PRC
Regional Office in Legaspi City, Albay;
and he is a Teacher I of S. Aguirre Elementary School, East District, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte.
Moreover,
petitioner also faults the Board of Professional Teachers-Lucena
City for acting on respondent’s unverified letter in violation of CSC
Resolution No. 94-0521 which provides:
Section 4. Complaint in Writing and Under Oath.
– No complaint against a civil servant shall be given due course, unless the
same is in writing and under oath.
He
also asserts that respondent purposely filed the complaint before the Board of Professional
Teachers in
Petitioner’s
contentions are without merit.
Petitioner’s
allegation of improper venue and the fact that the complaint was not under oath
are not sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the complaint. Well to remember, the case was an
administrative case and as such, technical rules of procedure are liberally
applied. In administrative cases, technical rules of
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.[25] The intention is to resolve disputes brought
before such bodies in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner possible.[26]
Petitioner
was likewise amply afforded administrative due process the essence of which is
an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration
of the action or ruling complained of.[27] The records show that petitioner filed the
following: (1) Compliance-Answer to the Complaint; (2) Rejoinder; (3) Position
paper; (4) Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution of the Board of Professional
Teachers finding him guilty as charged; and (5) Motion for Reconsideration of
the decision of the Court of Appeals. He
attended the preliminary conference and hearing where he was able to adduce his
evidence. With the opportunities he had,
he cannot claim he was denied due process.
As
regards his claim that the Board of Professional Teachers-Lucena
City was partial because the investigating officer knew respondent personally, the
same was not substantiated. Even
assuming arguendo
that the investigating officer knew respondent, convincing proof was still
required to establish partiality or bias.
Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias.[28] For failure of petitioner to adduce such
evidence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails.[29]
That
he was allegedly informed of Dominador Blanco’s
retraction upon receipt of the Board’s resolution is also of no moment. Even if it were true that petitioner was only
informed of the retraction when he received a copy of the Board’s resolution,
there was still no denial of due process because he still had the opportunity
to question the same in his Motion for Reconsideration. This, he did not do.
But
was there substantial evidence to show that petitioner was guilty of immoral
and dishonorable conduct? On this issue,
we likewise find against petitioner.
Petitioner
claims good faith and maintains that he married respondent with the erroneous
belief that his first wife was already deceased. He insists that such act of entering into the
second marriage did not qualify as an immoral act, and asserts that he
committed the act even before he became a teacher. He said that for thirteen (13) years, he was
a good husband and loving father to his children with respondent. He was even an inspiration to many as he built
a second home thinking that he had lost his first. He wanted to make things right when he
learned of the whereabouts of his first family and longed to make up for his
lost years with them. He maintains that
he never violated the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers but
embraced it like a good citizen when he opted to stop his illicit marriage to
go back to his first family. He adds
that respondent knew fully well he was married and had children when they
contracted marriage. Thus, she was also
at fault. Lastly, he claims there was no
substantial proof to show that his bigamous marriage contracted before he
became a teacher has brought damage to the teaching profession.
However,
the issues of whether petitioner knew his first wife to be dead and whether
respondent knew that petitioner was already married have been ruled upon by
both the Board of Professional Teachers and the Court of Appeals. The Board and the appellate court found
untenable petitioner’s belief that his first wife was already dead and that his
former marriage was no longer subsisting.
For failing to get a court order declaring his first wife presumptively
dead, his marriage to respondent was clearly unlawful and immoral.
It
is not the Court’s function to evaluate factual questions all over again. A weighing of evidence necessarily involves the consideration
of factual issues - an exercise that is not appropriate for the Rule 45
petition filed. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the
parties may raise only questions of law in petitions filed under Rule 45, as
the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. As a rule, we are not duty-bound to again
analyze and weigh the evidence introduced and considered in the tribunals
below.[30]
This is particularly true where the Board
and the Court of Appeals agree on the facts.
While there are recognized exceptions to this general rule and the Court
may be prevailed upon to review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
when the same are manifestly mistaken, or when the appealed judgment was based
on a misapprehension of facts, or when the appellate court overlooked certain
undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion,[31]
no such circumstances exist in this case.
Indeed, there
is no sufficient reason to overturn the findings of the Board as affirmed by
the appellate court. It is clear from
the evidence that petitioner’s claim that he believed his first wife Cristina Puse to be already dead was belied by the latter’s
declaration. In the affidavit submitted before the CSC in A.C. No. CSC RO5
D-06-012 entitled Cristina Puse v. Ligaya de los Santos,
Cristina Puse, petitioner’s first wife, declared that
“Sometime in 1993, complainant decided to
work in Hongkong x x x. Since then up to
the present, she has regularly sent financial support to her children and
husband. From time to time, complainant
would visit her family in the
Petitioner’s
contention that there was no substantial evidence to show his guilt because respondent
did not even formally offer her exhibits also does not persuade. As we have already said, technical rules of
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in administrative proceedings. The fact that respondent did not formally
offer her exhibits the way she would in the courts of justice does not prevent
the Board of Professional Teachers or Court of Appeals from admitting said
exhibits and considering them in the resolution of the case. Under Section 5 of PRC Resolution No. 06-342
(A), Series of 2006, also known as the New Rules of Procedure in
Administrative Investigations in the Professional Regulation Commission and the
Professional Regulatory Boards, “technical errors in the admission of the
evidence which do not prejudice the substantive rights of the parties shall not
vitiate the proceedings.” Here, we do not
find any evidence that respondent’s failure to formally offer her exhibits substantially
prejudiced petitioner.
Neither is
there merit to petitioner’s contention that because he contracted the bigamous
marriage before he even became a teacher, he is not required to observe the ethical
standards set forth in the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers.[32]
In the practice
of his profession, he, as a licensed professional teacher, is required to
strictly adhere to, observe and practice the set of ethical and moral
principles, standards and values laid down in the aforesaid code. It is of no moment that he was not yet a
teacher when he contracted his second marriage.
His good moral character is a continuing requirement which he must possess
if he wants to continue practicing his noble profession. In the instant case, he failed to abide by
the tenets of morality. Petitioner kept
his first marriage secret to his second wife.
Unfortunately for him, his second wife discovered his true marital
status which led to the filing of the administrative and criminal cases against
him.
In
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.
x x x x
As a teacher, petitioner serves as an example to his pupils, especially during their formative years and stands in loco parentis to them. To stress their importance in our society, teachers are given substitute and special parental authority under our laws.
Consequently, it is but stating the obvious to assert that teachers must adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency. There is no dichotomy of morality. A teacher, both in his official and personal conduct, must display exemplary behavior. He must freely and willingly accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed irksome by ordinary citizens. In other words, the personal behavior of teachers, in and outside the classroom, must be beyond reproach.
Accordingly, teachers 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 behaviour amounts to immorality, justifying his termination
from employment.[33]
The Code of
Ethics of Professional Teachers contains, among others, the following:
PREAMBLE
Teachers are duly licensed
professionals who possess dignity and reputation with high moral values as well as technical and professional
competence. In the practice of their
noble profession, they strictly adhere
to, observe, and practice this set of ethical and moral principles, standards,
and values.
x x x x
ARTICLE II
THE TEACHER AND THE STATE
Section 1. The schools are the nurseries of the citizens of the state. Each teacher is a trustee of the cultural and educational heritage of the nation and is under obligation to transmit to learners such heritage as well as to elevate national morality, x x x.
x x x x
Section 3. In the interest of the State of the Filipino
people as much as of his own, every teacher shall be physically, mentally and morally fit.
x
x x x
ARTICLE III
THE TEACHER AND THE COMMUNITY
x x x x
Section 3. Every teacher shall merit reasonable social recognition for which purpose he shall behave with honor and dignity at all times and refrain from such activities as gambling, smoking, drunkenness and other excesses, much less illicit relations.
x x x x
ARTICLE XI
THE TEACHER AS A PERSON
Section 1. A teacher shall live with dignity in all places at all times.
x x x x
Section 3. A teacher shall maintain at all times a dignified personality which could serve as model worthy of emulation by learners, peers, and others. [Emphasis supplied.]
The foregoing
provisions show that a teacher must conform to the standards of the Code. Any deviation from the prescribed standards,
principles and values renders a teacher unfit to continue practicing his
profession. Thus, it is required that a
teacher must at all times be moral, honorable and dignified.
The discovery
of petitioner’s bigamous marriage has definitely caused damage to the teaching
profession. How can he hold his head up
high and expect his students, his peers and the community to look up to him as
a model worthy of emulation when he failed to follow the tenets of morality?
The fact that
he is now allegedly walking away from his second marriage in order to be with
his first family to make up for lost time does not wipe away the immoral
conduct he performed when he contracted his second marriage. If we are to condone immoral acts simply because
the offender says he is turning his back on his immoral activities, such would
be a convenient excuse for moral transgressors and which would only abet the
commission of similar immoral acts.
His assertion that he fulfilled his responsibilities as a
father and a husband to his second family will, even if true, not cleanse his
moral transgression. In a case involving
a lawyer who raised this same defense, we held:
Before we write finis to this case, we find it necessary to stress certain points in view of respondent’s additional reason why he should be exonerated – that he loves all his children and has always provided for them. He may have indeed provided well for his children. But this accomplishment is not sufficient to show his moral fitness to continue being a member of the noble profession of law. It has always been the duties of parents – e.g., to support, educate and instruct their children according to right precepts and good example; and to give them love, companionship and understanding, as well as moral and spiritual guidance. But what respondent forgot is that he has also duties to his wife. As a husband, he is obliged to live with her; observe mutual love, respect and fidelity; and render help and support. And most important of all, he is obliged to remain faithful to her until death.[34]
Petitioner’s
claim that he is a good provider to his second family is belied by the complaint
of respondent wherein it was alleged that he failed financially to support his
second family. Moreover, he is already
delinquent as to his duties to his second wife.
How can he live with her,
observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, render help and support, and
to remain faithful to her until death when he has another family to whom he is returning
to?
All told, petitioner’s
act of entering into said second marriage constitutes grossly immoral conduct. No doubt, such actuation demonstrates a lack
of that degree of morality required of him as a member of the teaching
profession. When he contracted his
second marriage despite the subsistence of the first, he made a mockery of
marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
We now go to
the penalty imposed on petitioner. The
penalty imposed on petitioner was the revocation of his license which penalty
was upheld by the Court of Appeals. He
claims that such penalty was harsh and inappropriate. He cites Section 22, Rule XIV of the Omnibus
Civil Service Rules and Regulations which states that disgraceful and
immoral conduct is a grave offense punishable by suspension for six (6) months
and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal for the
second offense. Considering that the
charge was supposedly his first offense and taking into account his years of
committed service, the commensurate penalty, according to petitioner, is only
the suspension of his professional license.
He refers to the case of Vitug v. Rongcal,[35]
where this Court considered remorse and the brevity of the illicit relationship
as mitigating circumstances taken in favor of the respondent lawyer.
It must be remembered, however, that petitioner was charged before the
Board of Professional Teachers under Rep. Act No. 7836 and not under Civil
Service Law, Rules and Regulations.
Under Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7836, the Board has the power to suspend
or revoke the certificate of registration[36]
of any teacher for any causes mentioned in said section, one (1) of which is
immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct. The Board has the discretion, taking into
account the circumstances obtaining, to impose the penalty of suspension or
revocation. In the imposition of the
penalty, the Board is not guided by Section 22 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil
Service Rules and Regulations which provides for suspension for six (6) months
and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal for the
second offense for disgraceful and immoral conduct. Petitioner, therefore, cannot insist that
Section 22 be applied to him in the imposition of his penalty, because the
Board’s basis is Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7836 which does not consider
whether the offense was committed the first or second time.
As to the supposed mitigating circumstances of remorse
and brevity of the illicit relationship, these cannot be appreciated in
petitioner’s favor, as these circumstances are not present in the instant
case. We do not find any expression of remorse
in petitioner. What we note, instead, is obduracy on his part. Despite the clear evidence (first wife’s
statement that she regularly sends financial support to her children and
husband [referring to petitioner] and that she visits them in the Philippines
at least once a year) showing that petitioner knew that his first wife was
still alive, he remains unyielding on his stand that he thought that his wife
was already deceased. We also cannot
consider the illicit and immoral relationship to be brief because it lasted for
more than twelve (12) years until respondent learned about petitioner’s
deception.
Under
the circumstances, we find the penalty imposed by the Board proper.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
With costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
WE
CONCUR: REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
|
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
[1] CA rollo, pp. 134-138. Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo concurring.
[2] Rollo, p. 144.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] ARTICLE III – THE TEACHER AND THE COMMUNITY
x
x x x
Section 3. Every teacher shall merit reasonable social recognition for which purpose he shall behave with honor and dignity at all times and refrain from such activities as gambling, smoking, drunkenness and other excesses, much less illicit relations.
[12] ARTICLE XI – THE TEACHER AS A PERSON
x
x x x
Section 3. A teacher shall maintain at all times a dignified
personality which could serve as a model worthy of emulation by learners, peers,
and others.
[13] Oath of Professionals
I
further solemnly swear that at all times and places I will adhere closely to
the ethical standards and professional roles of teachers in the
[14] Rollo, pp. 83-84.
[15] CA rollo, pp. 134-138.
[16]
[17] Rollo, pp. 22-23.
[18] Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Vol. 1, Third Revision, p. 1761.
[19] Civil Service Commission v. Sojor, G.R. No. 168766,
[20] Sec. 23 (h) has been repealed by Sec. 20, Rep. Act No. 8981 (PRC Modernization Act of 2000).
[21] Civil Service Commission v. Alfonso, G.R. No. 179452, June 11, 2009, pp. 7-8.
[22] Department of Justice v. Liwag, G.R. No. 149311,
[23] G.R. No. 139794,
[24] G.R. No. 168670,
[25] Emin v. De Leon, supra at 154.
[26] De la Cruz v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports-Cordillera Administrative Region, G.R. No. 146739, January 16, 2004, 420 SCRA 113, 124.
[27] Alcala v. Villar,
G.R. No. 156063,
[28] De la
Cruz v. Department of Education, Culture and Sports-Cordillera Administrative
Region, supra at 123.
[29]
[30]
[31] Orix Metro Leasing and Finance Corporation v. M/V
“Pilar-1,” G.R. No. 157901, September 11, 2009, p. 15.
[32] Professional Regulation Commission Resolution No. 435, Series of 1997.
[33] G.R. No. 115795,
[34] Cojuangco,
Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474,
[35]
A.C. No. 6313,
[36] SEC. 17. Issuance of Certificate of Registration and Professional License. – The registration of a professional teacher commences from the date his name is enrolled in the roster of professional teachers.
Every registrant who has satisfactorily met all the requirements specified in this Act shall, upon payment of the registration fee, be issued a certificate of registration as a professional teacher x x x as evidence that the person named therein is entitled to practice the profession x x x. The certificate shall remain in full force and effect until withdrawn, suspended and/or revoked in accordance with law.
A professional license x x x shall likewise be issued to every registrant who has paid the annual registration fees for three (3) consecutive years. This license shall serve as evidence that the licensee can lawfully practice his profession until the expiration of its validity.