IN-SET District of Banga 2018

Teaching is a noble profession.  Yet some teachers seem do not care about its dignity. In the Philippines, there have been complaints against teachers on how they behave or conduct themselves whether inside or outside their classrooms. There are also some teachers who view the teaching profession as a job to earn some money forgetting what they really profess. Moreover, we have many teachers today as many have passed the Licensure Exam for Teachers. Among those are potentially good teachers who are presently working in a low-skilled or low-wage job. There are also among them who have no ethical standard though they have met all the requirements to teach. Even if there is the so-called ranking method or a merit system where one has to present all his or her credentials to avail a teaching post, at times it is the padrino system that works in the Philippines. Padrino system is part of Filipino politics where one gains favor through family affiliation or friendship rather than through one’s merit. Because of this, we sacrifice those men and women who have a heartfelt desire to promote quality education and those who value the dignity of the teaching profession.

Although the professional life of a teacher depends on his or her sense of moral responsibility towards the teaching profession in particular and towards the community in general; teaching as a profession has its own worth and importance aside from how a teacher puts value on it. A teacher should make himself/herself “fit” to embrace the said profession. He/she should not take the Oath of Professionals if he/she is not sincere to closely adhere at all times and in all places to the ethical standards and professional roles of teachers in the Philippines. He/she should not also take the Oath as a mere formality for practicing the teaching profession. Rather, it should be his/her personal duty to always evaluate his/her actions according to his/her sworn promise. It is his or her duty to uphold the dignity of the teaching profession by observing the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers. Article XI, Section 3 of the Code states that a teacher shall maintain at all times a dignified personality which could serve as a model worthy of emulation by learners, peers, and others.

The Dignity of the Teaching Profession is highly acknowledged in our country. The Revised Penal Code, in the third paragraph of Article 152, states that “in applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code,” teachers, professors, etc. are persons in authority. What is the significance of teachers being considered as persons in authority? Well, Article 148 deals with the crime of Direct Assault while Article 151 deals with the crime of Resistance and Disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. This means that it is not a simple misdemeanor for one to attack or go against any teacher who fulfills his or her duty. It is a serious crime.

In People vs. Ceprioso, C.A., 52 O.G. 2609, it was held that the spirit and purpose of the law is to give teachers protection, dignity and respect while in the performance of their official duties. This protection extends not only against pupils or relatives of pupils, but against all persons who knowingly attack a teacher while engaged in the performance of his official duties. Respect for a teacher is required of all persons, whether pupils, parents of pupils, or otherwise, if we are to uphold and enhance the dignity of the teaching profession which the law similarly enjoins upon all persons for the sake of the pupils and the profession itself.

To highlight the dignity of the teaching profession, those who were already teaching before the Family Code of the Philippines took effect in 1987, are familiar with the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis (in the place of a parent) which was applied to them as teachers. When parents send their children to school, they pass on their parental authority over the latter with the school, its administrators and teachers temporarily. Teachers therefore do not just teach but they too have to look after their pupils or students as if they were their own kids. They substitute or take the place of the parents of those children while in school. They become liable for any damages caused by or caused to their pupils or students while in school.

Now, with the Family Code of the Philippines, Article 218 states that teachers can legally exercise their parental authority and responsibility over the children in school simultaneously with the natural parents. It is no longer a substitute parental authority but a special parental authority. The parents do not “pass on” their parental authority over their children, rather they “share” it with the teachers. Yet, if we take a look at Article 219 of the same code, it states that teachers with their special parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for any damages caused by or to their pupils or students. It means that teachers can only be relieved from their liabilities if it is proven that they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances. In essence, the authority and responsibility of a teacher remains the same under the code and under the doctrine of In Loco Parentis. In the case School of the Holy Spirit vs Taguiam, GR No. 165565, the court held that “As a teacher who stands in loco parentis to her pupils, respondent should have made sure that the children were protected from all harm while in her company. Respondent should have known that leaving the pupils in the swimming pool area all by themselves may result in an accident. A simple reminder “not to go to the deepest part of the pool” was insufficient to cast away all the serious dangers that the situation presented to the children, especially when respondent knew that Chiara Mae cannot swim. Dismally, respondent created an unsafe situation which exposed the lives of all the pupils concerned to real danger. This is a clear violation not only of the trust and confidence reposed on her by the parents of the pupils but also of the school.” Related to this, The Civil Code of the Philippines, under Article 2180 states the same regarding the liabilities of teachers though the case of Palisoc vs Brillantes, et al. brings forth the doctrine that teachers are responsible for the acts of their students, not only minors but those emancipated as well.

In stating all these, we can say that teachers have great responsibility. Great responsibility implies there exists a great power. Such great power of a teacher comes from the profession itself, separate and distinct from the person who engages in teaching activities. To use the words of Justice Reyes, “While in the case of parents and guardians, their authority and supervision over the children and wards end by law upon the latter reaching majority age, the authority and custodial supervision over pupils exist regardless of the age of the latter. A student over twenty-one, by enrolling and attending a school, places himself under the custodial supervision and disciplinary authority of the school authorities, which is the basis of the latter’s correlative responsibility for his torts, committed while under such authority.”

Truly, teaching profession is worthy of honor among all other professions. Teachers must be careful on how they conduct themselves as they would create bad impressions which could be harmful to the teaching profession itself. In the case of Rene Puse vs Ligaya Puse, GR No. 183678, March 15, 2010, the court said, “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. 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.”

But what standard of morality is expected from teachers to preserve the dignity of the teaching profession? The case of Cheryll Santos Leus vs St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, GR No. 187226 has this to say: “When the law refers to morality, it necessarily pertains to public and secular morality and not religious morality.”

There is no question that Teaching Profession is still the most attractive profession in the country. In fact, it is said that teaching is the mother of all professions. This is true in the sense that without a teacher; there can be no doctors, lawyers, priests, etc. Likewise, there are now new public or private schools and universities which are established and we know that there can be no schools or universities which can survive without any teachers. No doubt, teaching as a profession is inherently good and it is good for teachers to uphold its dignity by maintaining a dignified personality which could serve as a model worthy of emulation by learners, peers, and others. “A teacher is, above all, a human being endowed with life for which it is the highest obligation to live with dignity at all times whether in school, in the home, or elsewhere” (Section 1, Article XI Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers).