+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Chua-Qua

Chua-Qua

Date post: 07-Sep-2015
Category:
Upload: pawsmason
View: 219 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Case digest in a slide
Popular Tags:
17
CHUA-QUA VS. CLAVE (G.R. NO. L-49549 AUGUST 30, 1990) Iola Vianka M. Piñon English for Specific Purpose Prof. Rafie Paz
Transcript

Chua-Qua vs. Clave

Chua-Qua vs. Clave (G.R. No. L-49549 August 30, 1990)Iola Vianka M. PionEnglish for Specific PurposeProf. Rafie PazEvelyn Chua was a 30 year old teacher in Tay Tung High School located in Bacolod City.

She was the class adviser of the grade six students. One of her students was Bobby Qua, a 16 year old boy who needed remedial instructions.

Because of this, Evelyn extended to him in school after their classroom lessons.

However, in course of this, they fell in love with each other.

Eventually, with the consent of Bobbys mother, the two got married on Dec. 24, 1975 in a civil ceremony.

The two were again married on January 10, 1976 in a church wedding in Bacolod City.Upon knowledge, the school filed a case for Abusive and Unethical Conduct Unbecoming of a Dignified School Teacher seeking for a clearance to terminate Evelyn.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Evelyns dismissal for immoral conduct was valid?Applicable Law:Code of Ethics for TeachersPhilippine TeachersProfessionalization Act of 1994 (R.A. 7836)

Conclusion / Decision

The Supreme Court held that the dismissal against Evelyn is illegal and that she did not commit any misconduct.

They held that:If the two eventually fell in love despite the disparity in their ages and academic level, this only leads to the truism that the heart has reason of its own which reason does not know.

Finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of Code of Ethics governing school teachers would have no basis.

Private respondent utterly failed to show that petitioner took advantage of her position to court her student. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.Rationale:The Supreme Court did not consider immoral Evelyn Chua-Qua's act of falling in love with, and later marrying, a boy who was fourteen years her junior, scandalous though it may have been. TheSupreme Court of the Philippinesacknowledged the power of love.

Note:The facts of this case were covered by the oldCivil Code of the Philippines, which allowed persons not yet eighteen years old to get married with the consent of their parents. With the passing of theFamily Code of the Philippineson July 6, 1987, a person below eighteen years of age cannot marry, even with the consent of his or her parents.

Sources:http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php/Chua-Qua_vs._Clavehttp://russelmrubia.blogspot.com/2012/07/chua-qua-vs-clave.htmlGoogle.comLawphil.net


Recommended