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).
