Hidalgo, Alyannah M.

3LM4
September 22, 2020

EVELYN CHUA QUA V. HON. CLAVE

G.R. No. 49549 August 30, 1990

FACTS:
Evelyn Chua is 30-year-old elementary-school teacher in Tay Tung High School in Bacolod City.
She had an affair with, and married, her 16-year-old student, Bobby Qua, who apparently needed
remedial instructions which she extended to him in school after their classroom lessons. In the course of
this, the two fell in love, and with the consent of Bobby's mother, they got married in a civil ceremony in
Iloilo City on December 24, 1975, and in a church wedding in Bacolod City on January 10, 1976.
Because of this, Evelyn Chua was fired by the school for immoral conduct. The petitioner teacher was
suspended without pay and was terminated of his employment “for Abusive and Unethical Conduct
Unbecoming of a Dignified School Teacher” which was filed by a public respondent as a clearance for
termination.

ISSUE:
Was her dismissal valid?
Whether or not there is substantial evidence to prove that the antecedent facts which culminated in the
marriage between petitioner and her student constitute immorality and or grave misconduct?

RULING:
NO. The Supreme Court declared the dismissal illegal saying: “Private respondent [the school]
utterly failed to show that petitioner [30-year old lady teacher] took advantage of her position to court her
student [16-year old]. 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.”

No. 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.