G.R. No. 193301 - Mindanao II Geothermal Partnership vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

December 24, 1975: Civil marriage of petitioner (30) and pupil (16).
January 10, 1976: Church wedding ratification.
February 4, 1976: School applies for clearance to terminate petitioner’s employment.
March 12, 1976: Petitioner suspended without pay.
September 17, 1976: Labor Arbiter grants clearance to terminate.
December 27, 1976: NLRC reverses arbiter, orders reinstatement with backwages.
March 30, 1977: Minister of Labor reverses NLRC, awards six months’ assistance.
September 1, 1978: Office of the President orders reinstatement with full back wages.
December 6, 1978: Office of the President grants reconsideration, allows termination with separation pay.
August 30, 1990: Supreme Court decision.

Labor Arbiter (NLRC Bacolod): Relied on affidavits alleging “amorous relations” in after-school remedial sessions; no formal hearing; granted clearance to terminate.
NLRC: Found no direct evidence of immoral acts, criticized affidavits as speculative, ordered reinstatement with backwages.
Minister of Labor: Reversed NLRC, granted petitioner six months’ salary assistance.
Office of the President (Clave): First decision reinstated petitioner with full backwages; on reconsideration granted Tay Tung’s petition to terminate with separation pay.
Supreme Court: Petition for certiorari filed challenging December 6, 1978 resolution.

Petitioner alleged deprivation of due process for admission of hearsay affidavits without confrontation.
Supreme Court held: Procedure by position papers and affidavits does not violate due process; petitioner could have requested viva voce hearing but did not; no constitutional breach.

Issue: Whether substantial evidence supported a finding of serious misconduct or immorality justifying termination under Labor Code.
School’s position: Petitioner abused authority, breached trust, violated Code of Ethics by courting pupil.
Petitioner’s position: Relationship matured into lawful marriage; no ground for dismissal based on lawful wedlock.

Affidavits offered by school were “unbelievable and unworthy of credit,” prepared long after alleged incidents, lacking specifics of immoral acts.
Labor Arbiter’s reliance on conjecture (“sane mind can imagine”) insufficient to prove immorality.
NLRC correctly found no direct evidence of scandalous or immoral conduct.
Office of the President’s reversal of its own favorable decision constituted grave abuse of discretion, relying solely o

...

Petitioner Evelyn Chua-Qua: employed as a classroom teacher at Tay Tung High School, Inc., Bacolod City, since 1963.
Private respondent Tay Tung High School, Inc.: an educational institution in Bacolod City.
Public respondent Hon. Jacobo C. Clave: Presidential Executive Assistant acting on behalf of the Office of the President of the Philippines.
In 1976, petitioner served as class adviser for a Grade VI section where student Bobby Qua was enrolled.

As part of the school’s remedial instruction policy, petitioner tutored Bobby Qua after regular classes.
During these sessions, petitioner and Bobby Qua fell in love.
Civil marriage solemnized on December 24, 1975 in Iloilo City; petitioner aged 30, Bobby Qua aged 16 with maternal consent.
Religious (church) wedding ratified their union on January 10, 1976 in Bacolod City.

On February 4, 1976, Tay Tung High School filed with the Department of Labor a clearance application to terminate petitioner for “abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher” and alleged demoralizing impact on school morals.
Petitioner was placed under suspension without pay on March 12, 1976.

Case No. 956 before Executive Labor Arbiter Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. of the NLRC, Bacolod City.
No formal hearing conducted; parties submitted position papers and affidavits.
Affidavits (N-1 to N-4) alleged that petitioner “lured” a pupil into an amorous relationship and stayed with him alone in locked classroom after hours.
Award dated September 17, 1976 granted clearance to terminate, finding undisputed affidavits sufficient to “imagine” immoral acts despite lack of direct proof.

On October 7, 1976, petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission.
NLRC Resolution dated December 27, 1976 unanimously reversed the Labor Arbiter:
- Affiants never swore to witnessing immoral or scandalous acts.
- Conversation inside classroom with lights on and door ajar did not prove immorality.
- No evidence showed demoralizing effects or breach of teacher’s dignity.
Ordered reinstatement of pet