G.R. No. L-49549. August 30, 1990
EVELYN CHUA-QUA, petitioner, vs. HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE, in his capacity as Presidential Executive Assistant, and TAY TUNG HIGH SCHOOL, INC., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Evelyn Chua-Qua was a teacher at Tay Tung High School in Bacolod City. In 1976, she married her former student, Bobby Qua, who was sixteen years old and fourteen years her junior. The school subsequently filed an application for clearance to terminate her employment, citing “abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher” and claiming her continued employment was inimical to the school’s moral values. The school alleged she had an amorous relationship with the student, citing instances where they were seen together in a classroom after hours.
The Executive Labor Arbiter granted the school’s application for clearance, concluding that an amorous relationship existed and that one could infer immoral acts from the circumstances, despite a lack of direct evidence. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, finding no evidence of immoral acts and ordering reinstatement with back wages. However, the Minister of Labor later reversed the NLRC. On appeal, the Office of the President, through respondent Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave, initially ordered reinstatement with full back wages but later granted a motion for reconsideration and set aside that order, prompting the petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissal of petitioner Evelyn Chua-Qua from her employment as a teacher was valid based on the alleged immoral conduct arising from her marriage to her former student.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal. The Court emphasized that in termination cases, the burden of proof rests on the employer to establish a just and valid cause. The school failed to present substantial evidence to prove the alleged immoral acts. The affidavits submitted only showed that the petitioner and the student were seen talking in a classroom after hours with the lights on and a door open, which does not constitute proof of scandalous or immoral behavior. The Court held that falling in love and entering into a lawful marriage, even with a significant age difference, cannot be casually equated with immorality. There was no evidence that the petitioner abused her position as a teacher to initiate the relationship. The Court found that the school’s policy on moral values could not defeat the constitutional right to security of tenure without concrete proof of wrongdoing. However, due to the severely strained relationship between the parties, the Court deemed reinstatement impracticable. Instead, the school was ordered to pay the petitioner back wages equivalent to three years and separation pay computed at one month for every year of service.