Republic of the Philippines

Davao Oriental State College of Science and Technology

Institute of Education and Teacher Training
Guang-guang, Brgy. Dahican, City of Mati

EDUC 111
THE TEACHING PROFESSION

Submitted by:
Airel Eve Canoy BPEd- III

Submitted to:
Mr. Romeo Redulla

June 29, 2021

 CASE ANALYSIS
Teacher punches Student

This case is about a MAPEH teacher (Teacher A) and a 14-year old second year
student (Student A) at Antadao National High School in Sagada, Mountain Province. It
was September 13, 2003 when the student filed an affidavit complaint against the
teacher. On the morning of August 26, 2003, student A claimed that he went to his class
at the school's basketball court, where teacher A and his third-year students were also
holding a separate class; student A and a few of his classmates practiced basketball
shots with Teacher A's third-year students. Teacher A then told them to form two lines;
Student A, mistakenly believing that three lines were to be created, remained in the
middle of the two lines. Teacher A then hit Student A in the stomach by
punching without a warning for failing to follow directions; as a result, the student felt
stomach pain for many days and was confined in a hospital from September 10 to 12,
2003. It was later found out that Student A had a contusion hematoma in the
hypogastric area, according to a medico-legal certificate.
With the incident, Student A filed criminal charges against Teacher A in the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bontoc, Mountain Province, for the offense of Less
Serious Physical Injury. The CSC-CAR (Civil Service Commission-Cordillera
Administrative Region) took notice of the administrative case and ordered Teacher A to
file his counter-affidavit. He rejected the allegations, claiming that he instructed the girls
to play volleyball and the boys to play basketball in his Music, Arts, Physical Education,
and Health (MAPEH) class, which was made up of third-year students, and that he
afterwards directed the boys to form two lines. He reprimanded the students and
confiscated the ball from them after they failed to follow his repeated instructions. He
observed that there were male students who were not part of his class who had joined
the shooting practice as he approached them; one of those male students was Student
A, who was supposed to be having his own MAPEH class under another teacher. He
then stared at them, kept scolding them, and dismissed the class for their failure to obey
directions; and he gave the sworn testimony of other students to indicate that he did not
box Student A.
The CSC-CAR concluded a prima facie case of misbehaviour on June 1, 2004,
and officially charged Teacher A. While the administrative matter was being heard, the
RTC handed down its decision in the criminal case, finding Teacher A guilty of causing
minor bodily harm. He received a sentence ranging from eleven (11) to twenty (20) days
in prison. The ruling became final and to be executed after he applied for probation, and
a judgment was entered. The prosecution presented its position document in lieu of a
formal presentation of evidence and formally offered its evidence, which included the
criminal case decision with the CSC-consent.  It included statements from Student B- a
classmate of Student A, and Student C, a third-year high school student, both of whom
saw Teacher A punches Student A in the stomach. Teacher A's defense then
presented the testimony of his witnesses: Teacher B, a teacher from another school
who claimed to be a member of the Municipal Council for the Protection of Children and
that in that capacity, he investigated the incident and concluded that it did not occur at
all. And Teacher C, who testified that he was there on the basketball court at the time
but did not witness the occurrence. To prove that he did not punch Student A, Teacher
A provided the affidavits of thirteen additional witnesses. Because of the severity of the
resultant injuries to the minor victim's delicate body, and acting a grave misconduct, the
CSC-CAR has imposed on respondent the maximum penalty for the infraction, which is
a six-month suspension without pay.
Teachers are duly licensed professionals who must possess not only
competence in the pursuit of their noble profession, but also dignity and a strong moral
character. They must carefully follow, observe, and put into practice the set of ethical
and moral principles, standards, and values outlined in the Code of Ethics for
Professional Teachers, which apply to all teachers in public and private schools in the
Philippines, as stated in the preamble to the Code. Teacher A’s conduct towards
Student A and towards his profession as a teacher is clearly unethical and
inconsiderable. The domains in the NCBTS and the Code of Ethics acts as a framework
for teachers, allowing them to stay on track and recognize their limits as a teacher and
as the second parent of their learners. It was further stated in the text that Teacher A
cannot contend that by punching Student A, he was exercising his power to discipline
his student as a teacher in loco parentis. The teacher's purposeful violation of his Code
of Ethics as a public school teacher is beyond reproach. Such a violation is comparable
to grave misconduct because it is a brazen disrespect for the established rule stated in
the aforementioned Code. Simply saying that the teacher is just doing it to discipline his
student is not just acceptable for me. I clearly disagree that a teacher needed to use
force or to hit students in order for the students to pay attention of to follow what the
instructions given are; because if you are really an effective teacher, you will look every
edge of the classroom, every student’s needs and address it as a whole and come up
with a strategy that best fit for every learner.
In the Code of ethics, Article VIII Section 8, it is explicitly expressed that “a
teacher shall not inflict corporal punishment on offending learners". Giving corporal
punishments to the students may sound “normal” in disciplining learners in the old eras,
however, it is included in the Code of Ethics that a teacher should not hit students as
punishments “which are clearly not manifestation of poor scholarship” or just because of
not following the given instructions. My stand about this case is firm and clear; Teacher
A is deserving of the penalty he received. Beating student will affect the student and the
teacher himself. The student might undergo attitudinal change or psychological
disorders/trauma that might also affect their development and progress in the
academic/school performance and in the society. Learners may come to believe that
using violence is acceptable. They employ bullying approaches against people who are
weaker. This gradually leads to degradation, contributing to feelings of helplessness
and humiliation, robbing a child of his or her self-worth and self-respect, and leading to
withdrawal or aggressiveness. All of these changes results in the breakdown of a
relationship. In the end, it all leads to a loss of trust between teacher and student. On
the other hand, the teacher’s profession may be at risk. Grave misconduct is a major
embarrassment in the teaching profession because this profession takes years for one
to have a license. And every teacher is reminded and I am sure are familiar if not
memorized the contents of the Code of Ethics, and with just one circumstance where
the teacher did not think of what the consequences are, all of his efforts will turn into
ashes and eventually will vanish. One might be like Teacher A who will be temporarily
suspended without a pay, or worst, be dismissed from the service and the license will
be revoked.
 In the first domain of the NCBTS, it posits about the Social Regard for Learning.
Teachers serve as good and powerful role models for the values of learning and
learning effort. This concept is exemplified through teachers' behaviours, remarks, and
many sorts of social interactions with students. It is essential that a teacher would
become a good example to his learners so that the learners will mirror their teacher’s
actions and behaviour in the classroom. However, in the mentioned case, the teacher is
basically not becoming a good role model. With this thought, the students might also
mirror what Teacher A had done because it is their teacher who was doing it, and
students are supposed to follow the teacher. Funny how it sounded, but in reality, some
would turn out to be like Teacher A because of the experience that they had
experienced.
Therefore, we as future educators, let us educate ourselves first. It is vital that we
are supplemented with imperative notions regarding our profession, equipped with skills
that are beneficial in the teaching field, possessed with moral behaviours ethical values
and applies what we had learned in a real-life situation. Let us always remember that
every action we make has a consequence to follow. Let us first think and ask ourselves:
“Would these make me happy if I would do these things?”, “Would these things help me
in becoming an effective teacher?” “Would these things help me grow personally and as
a teacher?”, then if the answers are “No”, then do not do it. To the licensed teachers,
and to the aspiring teachers, always bear in mind that teaching is a great profession. It
is a calling that many wishes to have, but not everyone who applied and studied can
have the license. Everyone can teach, but not everyone can teach pedagogically.
Everyone can become a teacher, but not everyone can sustain and endure. As a
teacher, let us respect the law by following it wholeheartedly. Let us become good role
models in our society that we can help bear a fruit that is sweet and tasteful but would
not beat them to produce some. It is said that teachers are modern day heroes, but how
can we become heroes if we act as a villain in the first place? Let us reflect in our
actions, do what is only morally good and abide the laws at all cost. Let us not add
another Teacher A in this profession, let us be holistically equipped and give service in
the society without putting a stain in our profession.