Chua-Qua vs.

Clave: The heart has

reasons of its own according to SC
ruling
Posted on August 22, 2017 by Mathew Emmanuel Pineda

There are stories of romance that are inappropriate for some. But true love defies odds and
overcomes hurdles. It even inspired the Supreme Court to arrive at a ruling that tugs at our
heartstrings.

Years before the ratification of the 1987 Family Code of the Philippines, the old civil code
extended marital rights to individuals under the age of 18 as long as there were proper
consent from the parents. Interesting enough, there was this related love-story-turned-
courtroom-drama that occurred during the 1970s.

Evelyn Chua and Bobby Qua

Our story began at Tay Tung High School in Bacolod City where 30-year-old Evelyn Chua
had built her teaching career for the last 12 years. For the academic year 1975-1976, she
handled a class of 6th grader. This was when she met 16-year-old Bobby Qua—one of her
students.

A school policy also obliged teachers to extend remedial instructions to students who
needed further academic assistance. Evelyn tutored Bobby nonetheless. Every after class,
the two would stay in the classroom to cover lessons and other academic subjects. Over the
course of their one-on-one tutorial sessions, the apparent student-teacher relationship
moved up another notch. The teacher, Evelyn Chua, and the student, Bobby Qua, found
themselves in love with one another.

On 24 December 1975, Evelyn and Bobby exchanged marital vows and tied the knot in a
civil ceremony. Because Bobby was only 16 that time, he needed consent from his parents.
On 19 January 1976, the couple observed the sacrament of holy matrimony in a ceremony
officiated by a Catholic priest.

Struggles of the newlyweds

There was no immediate happy ending for the newly weds. The marriage of a 30-year-old
teacher to a 16-year-old student drew flacks from and enraged the administrators of Tay
Tung High School

Tay Tung High School filed a clearance to terminate Evelyn before the sub-regional office of
the Department of Labor on the grounds of “abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a
dignified school teacher.”

The school further argued, “Her continued employment is inimical to the best interest, and
would downgrade the high moral values of the school.” In other words, the school
considered her a licensed professional with loose morals.

Executive Labor Arbiter Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. of the National Labor Relations Commission,
Bacolod City, required Evelyn and the school to submit position papers and evidences as
affidavits.

In its affidavit, the school accused Evelyn of defying the standards of decency by recklessly
taking advantage of her position as a teacher. She was accused of luring a 6th-grader under
her advisory who was also 15 years her junior into an amorous relationship. The school also
mentioned that the lengthy after-class tutorial was an indicator of immoral acts transpiring
while in the performance of professional duty.

The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the school saying, “While no direct evidences have
been introduced to show that immoral acts were committed during these times, it is
however enough for a sane and credible mind to imagine and conclude what transpired and
took place during these times.” In other words, the Arbiter argued that although there was
no substantial evidence, the mere fact that Evelyn pursued a relationship with Bobby was a
proof that such immoral acts had transpired inside the school premises.

Evelyn lost her job. But she fought back and appealed to the National Labor Relations
Commission. The denial of due process was central to her contention. She also argued that
being in love with and wed-locked to her student did not make her less of a dignified
teacher. The commission subsequently reversed the earlier decision to favor Evelyn on
December 1976.

Pursuing the legal battle

Tay Tung High School refused to accept defeat however. An appeal filed with the Minister of
Labor on 30 March 1977 resulted in a decision that favored the school. The Minister
justified the termination of Evelyn but required the school to provide her with payouts
worth her entire six-month salary.

Evelyn elevated the case to the Office of the President on 20 May 1977. Then Presidential
Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave initially ordered the school to reinstate Evelyn.

Clave had a change of heart though. He based his new decision on the idea that the ongoing
rumors about Evelyn were creating an unhealthy environment. He further noted that a
school community has a delicate responsibility of nurturing children. Clave also argued that
a teacher should always act beyond reproach and above suspicion.

But love was persistent. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. In a decision
dated on 30 August 1990, the court favored the plight of Evelyn. The court also awarded her
with three years back wages and a separation pay.

Then Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado considered it unlawful to terminated Evelyn

based on unproven claims of immoral conduct. In addition, he highlighted the fact that
school policies should not be at odds with security of tenure. The judge also mentioned that
the marriage of Evelyn to Bobby could not be taken as a proof that immoral conduct had
taken place inside the school premises.

With regard to the claim that Evelyn used her authority to malign a child, Justice Regalado
said, while borrowing some words from Blaise Pascal: “If the two eventually fell in love,
despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the
truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know. But, definitely,
yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with
immorality. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal
pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.”

Source: Chua-Qua v Clave, G.R. No. 49549 (1990)

Facts:

Herein petitioner was a teacher (30 years of age) who fell in love with her student (16 years
old), and whom she later married. After their marriage, the teacher’s services were
terminated by the school on claim of “abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a
dignified school teacher” and whose “continued employment is inimical to the best interest,
and would downgrade the high moral values, of the school.” The allegation of immoral
conduct on the part of the teacher was based on supposedly several circumstances whereby
the teacher stayed alone with the student in the classroom after school hours when
everybody had gone home, with one door allegedly locked and the other slightly
open. These instances, it would seem, arose in pursuance of the school’s policy of extending
remedial instructions to the students.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner committed serious misconduct or breached the trust
reposed on her by her employer or committed any of the other grounds enumerated in
Article 283 (Now Article 282) of the Labor Code which will justify the termination of her
employment.

Ruling:

No. There was no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, hence “it follows that
the alleged violation of the 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. If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and
academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own
which reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is
not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the circumstances of their
marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of
contemporary social mores.”

This case has been very controversial as it involved an unconventional love story between a
teacher and her student (who was a minor). The Supreme Court, in deciding this case,
actually sided with herein petitioner. But as observed, it was not because of love that the
court took the petitioner’s side. It was because there was no substantial evidence of the
teacher’s alleged abusive and unethical conduct. If at all, the Court’s quoting of the famous
“the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know” is only an expression of its
belief that to love unconventionally is not necessarily immoral.

ART. 282. Termination by employer. - An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or
representative in connection with his work;

(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;

(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly
authorized representative;

(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any
immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representatives; and (e) Other causes
analogous to the foregoing.