Supreme Court Decision: Teacher Convicted of Child Abuse and Constructive Dismissal Cases, Schemes and Mind Maps of Local Government Studies

Download Supreme Court Decision: Teacher Convicted of Child Abuse and Constructive Dismissal Cases and more Schemes and Mind Maps Local Government Studies in PDF only on Docsity! My E-Portfolio in the Cases Filed Against Teachers in the Philippines (2015- present) Presented by: May Dichosa BSED-Soc. Stud. 3 Case 1 Teacher gets max of 6 years for stuffing trash in students’ mouths The Supreme Court says the lone student who filed a complaint suffered from lead poisoning and post- traumatic stress disorder due to teacher Melany Garin’s ’deplorable’ act. MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court has sentenced a teacher to a maximum of six years in prison for forcing her students to place trash in their mouths in their classroom. The High Court affirmed the decisions of the lower court of Antipolo City and of the appellate court, which found Melany B. Garin guilty of child abuse, in violation of Republic Act 7610, the law that protects children from abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. The SC, however, said the Court of Appeals erred when it dropped the part of the Antipolo court’s ruling that awarded damages to the lone student who filed a complaint against the teacher. The SC therefore ordered Garin to pay the student: P20,000 as moral damages, P20,000 as exemplary damages, P20,000 as temperate damages, P15,000 as fine The awarded damages will earn legal interest of 6% every year until the teacher is able to pay the amount in full. Garin had petitioned the SC to review the CA’s decision that affirmed the Antipolo Regional Trial Court ruling. Denying the teacher’s petition, the High Court said Garin’s act was in fact “deplorable” – it affected the mental and emotional development of the student. The abuse also caused the student to suffer from lead poisoning and post-traumatic stress disorder. “Any person who commits an act that debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being” is liable under Section 10, Article VI of RA 7610, the SC said. “While it may be true that not every instance of laying of hands on the child would constitute child-abuse, petitioner’s intention can be inferred from the manner in which she committed the act complained.” The SC also said: “On this score, petitioner’s act of forcing the victim, AAA, and his classmates to place in their mouths pieces of trash, consisting of scraps of paper, pencil shaving, dirt, and candy wrappers from the classroom’s dustpan, undoubtedly debased, degraded and demeaned their intrinsic worth and dignity as children. “As eloquently pronounced by the CA, no self-respecting human being would voluntarily place pieces of garbage in his or her mouth unless unduly coerced to do so. The gravity of petitioner’s action becomes all the more pronounced considering that the incident occurred in class and by reason of her moral ascendancy as AAA’s teacher.” Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015, the court withheld the identity and any information that could establish the identity of the student. – Rappler.com https://www.rappler.com/nation/luzon/supreme-court-finds-teacher-guilty-child-abuse-stuffing- trash-students-mouths/ admitted she cheated by copying the answers of another student with the consent and instruction of Perez. When the teacher reported the matter to the School, a second committee was tasked to investigate and conduct hearings relative to the controversy.13 Even so, Perez wrote letters14 to Coseteng and to the assistant principal, admitting her involvement in the incident. After due deliberation, the investigating committee adjudged Perez’s behavior as highly irregular for a teacher and found her liable for negligence in the performance of her duties. Based on the investigating committee’s recommendation,15 Perez was suspended from work effective May 26, 1995 to June 11, 1995 with one week commutation. She was then directed to report to work on June 13, 1995 for her assignment.16 Perez correspondingly served out her suspension. On June 14, 1995, without reporting back to work, Perez tendered her resignation to Coseteng via facsimile. Upon her resignation, Perez received all amounts due her under the Private Education Retirement Annuity, a program wherein teachers and employers contribute to a fund for the availment of the teachers on their retirement. Thereafter, nothing more was heard from Perez, until she filed a Complaint19 for payment of separation benefits with the Labor Arbiter (LA) on June 15, 1998. In her Position Paper,20 Perez argued that she was constructively dismissed from employment21 and prayed that she be granted separation pay in light of her twenty-three (23) years of service to the School.22 Perez also submitted an Affidavit23 executed by one Teresita Limochin (Limochin), who attested that she received separation pay from the School following her voluntary resignation. On January 7, 1999, Perez filed an Amended Complaint24 to include claims for constructive dismissal and damages against the School. She stated in her Supplemental Position Paper25 that she opted to resign from work because she was being demoted to a floating status. From her previous working hours of 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., she would be required to stay in school from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. as a “floating teacher”. Additionally, she would have to perform non-teaching tasks as may be assigned by the School.26 She averred that she really had no intention of going to the United States and, in fact, had never left the Philippines, but only gave that excuse in her resignation letter so as not to antagonize the petitioners. For their part, the petitioners argued that Perez’s cause of action has already prescribed under Article 29128 of the Labor Code, considering that three years had lapsed from the time of her resignation.29 They denied that Perez was constructively dismissed from employment as her resignation was a free and voluntary act on her part.30 They likewise refuted that Perez was demoted because her reassignment was due to a legitimate concern – the school year would have begun by the time Perez has served out her suspension; she wouldn’t be able to handle any class immediately at the beginning of a school year. But she would have to fill in for other teachers as may be necessary. Further, her salary and benefits would remain the same.31 Moreover, the petitioners contend that they did not grant separation pay to Limochin but merely gave her financial assistance. The petitioners prayed for the dismissal of Perez’s complaint and by way of counterclaim, prayed for the issuance of an order mandating Perez to pay them moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Decisions In view of the Court’s findings that Perez was not constructively dismissed from employment and therefore, not entitled to separation pay, the issue raised by the petitioners with regard to prescription need not be belabored. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated July 29, 2008 and Resolution dated December 17, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 72706 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The complaint filed by respondent Leticia P. Perez for constructive dismissal, separation pay and damages is DISMISSED. However, petitioners Alicia M.L. Coseteng and Diliman Preparatory School’s prayer for the award of moral damages, exemplary and attorney’s fees must be DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. https://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=87270:63435- 1&catid=1626&Itemid=566 (For more information just open the link provided). My Reaction: The case of Diliman Preparatory School and its former president, Alicia M.L. Coseteng, challenging the Court of Appeals’ ruling involving the constructive dismissal of Leticia P. Perez presents crucial questions concerning job rights and workplace fairness. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee is forced to resign due to the employer’s creation of intolerable working conditions. Perez claimed that she was constructively fired from her work at Diliman Preparatory School in this lawsuit. The Court of Appeals concurred with her claim, resulting in this petition for certiorari. This case emphasizes the significance of protecting employee rights and providing a fair work environment. Employers must create a safe and conducive work environment that respects employees’ dignity and well-being. Constructive dismissal not only violates fundamental rights, but it also damages employer-employee trust. Furthermore, this case underlines the importance of conducting extensive investigations into constructive dismissal accusations. Employers should not be permitted to create hostile work environments or to terminate employees without justification. In conclusion, the case of Diliman Preparatory School and Alicia M.L. Coseteng serves as a reminder that all employees deserve to be treated fairly at work. Employee rights must be respected in order to create a healthy work environment and foster strong interactions between employers and employees. Case 3 Must-Read Decision on the Case of Grave Misconduct By Mark Anthony Llego The Civil Service Commission passed Office Memorandum No. 27, s. 2016, dated April 13, 2016, advising all CSC Regional and Field Offices to disseminate copies of the Decision on the case of ANINAG, Jeffrey M., CSC Decision No. 15-0908, dated December 23, 2015, to all school heads within their respective jurisdiction for their guidance and information. Attached is a copy of the said O.M. No. 27, s. 2016. GRAVE MISCONDUCT The said Decision was considered a Must-Read Decision during the November 24, 2015 Commission Meeting. The Commission deemed It as must-read for the guidance of all school teachers and heads/principals as they are charged with the supervision and care of students. As teachers and heads/principals, their profession carries the utmost responsibility of setting a good example. Thus, an act of grave misconduct through sexual harassment is beyond the decency and the morality expected of teachers and heads/principals. Attached is a copy of the Decision on the case of ANINAG, Jeffrey M. (CSC Decision No. 15-0908), promulgated on December 23, 2015. This was considered a Must-Read Decision by the Commission for the guidance of our school teachers and administrators. In the attached version of the Decision, the name of the victim, her classmate and the school are withheld to protect their privacy. The same version may now be viewed or downloaded from the CSC website, specifically through this link: http://www.csc.gov.ph/20’14-02-21 -08-28-23/pdf- files/category/ 458-must-read-resoIutions-2015. As to the merits of the case, Aninag clearly demonstrated an unlawful behavior brought about by sexually harassing AAA in at least two (2) occasions simply offering the excuse of alibi and mere denial thereof. Such actuations of the appellant truly deserve serious attention as these are irregular, unlawful and beyond decency and norms expected from a high school teacher. There were clear transgressions of established and definite rule of action on his part. His immoral and threatening acts are without doubt unbecoming of a teacher. As a teacher, he is considered under the law as a second parent to students in the school and, thus, would naturally commit to provide special protection and assistance to them. In CSC Resolution No. 98-1432 dated July 10, 1998 (ARTECHE, Jesusita), the Commission stated, thus: Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence of the public officer. Also the word misconduct implies a wrongful intention, and not a mere error of judgement. If the transgression is done with deliberate intent or in complete disregard of established rules, it becomes Grave Misconduct. Otherwise, it is only Simple Misconduct. ’’(Emphasis supplied)