G.R. No. L-49549 - Chua-Qua vs. Clave

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49549)

Procedural History and Prior Adjudications

The school sought clearance to dismiss petitioner for “abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher.” The Labor Arbiter granted the clearance based on affidavits submitted by the school, without a formal hearing. The NLRC unanimously reversed and ordered reinstatement with backwages, finding the affidavits did not establish immoral or scandalous acts. The Minister of Labor initially reversed the NLRC but awarded six months’ salary as financial assistance. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President, which first ordered reinstatement with full back wages, but later, upon reconsideration, the Office reversed itself again and granted the school’s application to terminate employment while awarding separation pay equivalent to six months’ salary. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented to the Court

Petitioner’s certiorari petition essentially raised three issues: (1) that her dismissal was illegal and actually based on her marriage to a pupil; (2) that her right to due process was violated because the Labor Arbiter and subsequent authorities relied on hearsay affidavits without affording petitioner the chance to confront and cross-examine the affiants; and (3) that there was insufficient evidence to establish serious misconduct, breach of trust, or other grounds under Article 283 of the Labor Code to justify termination.

Due Process Claim — Court’s Analysis

The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that due process was violated. It observed that the parties were afforded an opportunity to present position papers and documentary evidence, and that the procedure of resolving issues on position papers and affidavits is not per se violative of due process. The Court noted that petitioner could have demanded a formal hearing to confront affiants but did not pursue that course, and that the affidavits were also discussed in subsequent proceedings before the Ministry of Labor. Thus, the absence of an oral confrontation did not, by itself, constitute denial of due process under the circumstances described in the record.

Merits — Standard of Review and Burden of Proof

The central legal question was whether substantial evidence supported the finding that petitioner’s antecedent conduct amounted to immorality, grave misconduct, or breach of trust sufficient to justify dismissal. The Court reiterated the principle that in termination cases the employer bears the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissal. Where factual findings are made administratively, the Supreme Court will set them aside only if they are tainted by absence or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion; factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence.

Evaluation of the Evidence and Findings of Fact

On the evidentiary record, the Labor Arbiter himself conceded there was no direct evidence of immoral acts; his adverse conclusion relied on conjecture that a “sane and credible mind” could imagine what transpired. The NLRC found the affidavits insufficient to establish immoral or scandalous acts and reversed. The Office of the President initially ordered reinstatement, echoing the NLRC’s view, but later reversed that decision on policy grounds, accepting that rumors and perceived damage to the school’s image justified termination. The Supreme Court identified grave abuse of discretion in the Office of the President’s reconsideration. The Court emphasized: the affidavits were prepared and executed long after the alleged incidents, lacked specifics of immoral conduct, and the timing of the school’s disciplinary action (after petitioner’s marriage) suggested afterthought and possible ulterior motives. The Court found the record devoid of substantial evidence that immoral acts occurred or that petitioner abused her position to court a pupil.

Application of the Code of Ethics and Labor Protections

Because there was no substantial proof that petitioner “took advantage of her position to court” the pupil or engaged in immoral acts, the purported violation of the teachers’ Code of Ethics had no evidentiary basis. The Court underscored that institutional policies about protecting pupils and maintaining moral standards cannot be invoked to circumvent the constitutional and statutory security of tenure for employees; the employer must substantiate allegations with adequate evidence. In this case, private respond

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-49549)

Procedural History

Petition for certiorari filed after a sequence of administrative and executive proceedings concerning petitioner’s termination by private respondent Tay Tung High School, Inc.
Initial administrative action: private respondent filed with the sub-regional office of the Department of Labor at Bacolod City an application for clearance to terminate petitioner’s employment on February 4, 1976. Petitioner was suspended without pay on March 12, 1976.
Executive Labor Arbiter Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. rendered an "Award" on September 17, 1976 (without conducting any formal hearing) granting the clearance to terminate petitioner’s employment.
Petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on October 7, 1976; on December 27, 1976 the NLRC unanimously reversed the Labor Arbiter and ordered reinstatement with backwages.
Private respondent elevated the case to the Minister of Labor, who on March 30, 1977 reversed the NLRC and awarded petitioner six months’ salary as financial assistance.
Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President on May 20, 1977; on September 1, 1978 Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave reversed the Minister’s decision and ordered reinstatement with full back wages from the time petitioner was not allowed to work until actual reinstatement.
On motion for reconsideration by private respondent, public respondent (Presidential Executive Assistant) on December 6, 1978 reconsidered and modified his earlier order, giving due course to Tay Tung’s application to terminate petitioner but awarding separation pay equivalent to six months’ salary.
Petitioner sought judicial review by filing a petition for certiorari with this Court challenging the December 6, 1978 resolution of public respondent.

Factual Background

Petitioner, Evelyn Chua-Qua, had been employed by Tay Tung High School, Inc. in Bacolod City as a teacher since 1963 and in 1976 served as class adviser of a sixth grade where one Bobby Qua was enrolled.
The school’s policy included the provision of remedial instructions to students; petitioner provided such remedial instruction to Bobby Qua inside the school.
A romantic relationship developed between petitioner and Bobby Qua during the remedial instruction period.
Civil marriage: December 24, 1975, solemnized in Iloilo City by Hon. Cornelio G. Lazaro, City Judge of Iloilo; petitioner was thirty (30) years old and Bobby Qua sixteen (16) years old at that time; consent and advice to the marriage was given by Bobby Qua’s mother, Mrs. Concepcion Ong.
Religious marriage: January 10, 1976, ratified according to their religion in a church wedding solemnized by Fr. Nick Melicor at Bacolod City.
The source material records differing age-gap descriptions in various places (described as “fourteen (14) years her junior” in the statement of controversy and elsewhere as “15 years her junior” in an affidavit referred to by private respondent).

Grounds and Allegations by Private Respondent

Private respondent applied for clearance to terminate petitioner’s employment on grounds stated as: “For abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher and that her continued employment is inimical to the best interest, and would downgrade the high moral values, of the school.”
Private respondent submitted affidavits alleging petitioner “defying all standards of decency, recklessly took advantage of her position as school teacher, lured a Grade VI boy under her advisory section and 15 years her junior into an amorous relation.”
Affiants alleged circumstances such as petitioner staying alone with Bobby Qua in the classroom after school hours, with one door allegedly locked and the other slightly open.
Private respondent invoked the Code of Ethics for teachers, citing that a “school official or teacher should never take advantage of his/her position to court a pupil or student,” and asserted petitioner’s conduct constituted serious misconduct, immoral act, or breach of trust and confidence.

Petitioner’s Denials and Contentions

Petitioner denied receiving copies of the affidavits that were relied upon by the Labor Arbiter.
Petitioner contended that there was nothing immoral, abusive, or unethical in a teacher entering into lawful wedlock with her student.
Petitioner argued that dismissal was actually based on her marriage to her pupil and was therefore illegal.
Petitioner claimed violation of due process when hearsay affidavits were admitted and considered without presenting the affiants as witnesses and without affording petitioner the right to confront and cross-examine them.
Petitioner asserted that no sufficient proofs were adduced showing serious misconduct or any of the grounds enumerated in Article 283 (now Article 282) of the Labor Code to justify termination.

Executive Labor Arbiter’s Award (September 17, 1976)

The Labor Arbiter rendered an Award without conducting a formal hearing, granting the employer’s clearance to terminate petitioner.
The Arbiter relied on several affidavits, holding that although “self-serving,” they were undisputed and “pointed out that before the marriage of respondent to Bobby Qua, fourteen (14) years her junior and during her employment with petitioner, an amorous relationship existed between them.”
The Arbiter noted absence of direct evidence of immoral acts but concluded that “it is however enough for a sane and credible mind to imagine and conclude what transpired and took place during these times.”
The Arbiter’s conclusion was acknowledged to be based on circumstantial impressions rather than direct proof.

National Labor Relations Commission Decision (December 27, 1976)

The NLRC unanimously reversed the Labor Arbiter and ordered petitioner’s reinstatement with backwages.
NLRC’s specific findings included:
- Affiants described seeing appellant and Qua sitting on a student desk inside a classroom after classes, but affiants did not swear that they were eyewitnesses to immoral or scandalous acts.
- Even straining moral imagination, the NLRC could not deduce anything immoral or scandalous from a girl and a boy talking inside a room after classes with lights on and the door open.
- The NLRC reviewed the sequence of events and foun