COMMONWEALTH ACT. NO.

578
THE LEGAL BASIS OF “TEACHERS AS
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY”

ED. 301
By : CATHERINE PRESIDENTE ROSILLO
INTRODUCTION:
This chapter presents a discussion on the legal
bases of “Teachers as Persons in Authority”. The
importance of these dimension in the life of teachers
cannot be overemphasized. In several instances, the
authority of the teacher had been put to the limelight.
With this topic is to discuss the legalities behind the
phrase “teachers as a person in authority”.
THE LEGAL BASIS OF “TEACHERS AS PERSONS IN
AUTHORITY”
• Introduction
• Definitions in “Persons in Authority”
• P and A distinguished from Agents of Person in
Authority
• Original concept of Teachers as Persons in Authority
• When a Teacher is not deemed a Person in Authority
• Direct assault differentiated from resistance and
disobedience
• Limitations
 DEFINITIONS OF PERSONS IN
AUTHORITY
Under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, a
person in authority is one “directly vested with jurisdiction,
whether as an individual or a member of some court of
government corporation, board or commission.” (article
152, Revised Penal Code).
IN ESSENCE, TEACHERS ARE NOT PERSON IN
AUTHORITY SINCE THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY
VESTED WITH JURISDICTION OR POWER TO GOVERN
AND EXECUTE LAWS. BUT “BY LEGAL FICTION”
BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMMONWEALTH
ACT 578 DULY AMENDED BY ARTICLE 152 OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE, TEACHERS BECAME
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY.
BY THE PHRASE “DIRECTLY VESTED WITH
JURISDICTION” IS A MEANT THE POWER OR
AUTHORITY TO GOVERN AND EXECUTE THE LAWS,
PARTICULARLY THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN THE
JUDGES TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE, THAT IS, TRY CIVIL
OR CRIMINAL CASES OR BOTH AND TO RENDER
JUDGEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAWS (PEOPLE
VS. MENDOZA, 59 PHIL. 163).
 THE TERM PERSONS IN AUTHORITY ACCORDING
TO COURT DECISIONS, ALSO INCLUDE MUNICIPAL
MAYOR, PROVINCIAL FISCALS, MUNICIPAL
COUNCILORS AND BARANGAY CHAIRMAN
PERSON IN AUTHORITY DISTINGUISHED FROM AGENTS
OF PERSON IN AUTHORITY
Persons in authority should not be taken to mean as agents of a person in
authority. This is because an agent of a person in authority is one who, by
“direct provision of law or by election or by appoinment by competent
authority is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection
and security of life and property, such as bario policeman and any person who
comes to the aid of person in authority.”

The following are considered as agents of persons in authority: policeman,

sheriff, agent of the BIR. So, when a policeman claims that he is a person in
authority, he is absoletely and legally wrong because he is just an agent of the
persons in authority.
 PERSON IN AUTHORITY AS DIFFERENTIATED FROM
PUBLIC OFFICER
Persons in authority should also be differentiated from public
officer. A public officer is “any person who, by direct
provision of law, popular elections or appointment by
competent authority, shall take part in the performance of
public functions in the government of the Philippines or shall
perform in said government public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official or any rank or class.” Article 203,
Revised Penal Code).
In essence, therefore, any person in the government
service is a public officer as defined. But the
important thing is that he is not necessarily a person
in authority or an agent therof.
ORIGINAL CONCEPT OF TEACHERS AS PERSONS IN
AUTHORITY
It is originally conceived that law did not consider teachers a
peson in authority. It was held in People vs. Mendoza, 59 Phil
163, that when a high school student slapped his teacher on the
check while she was engaged in the performance of her duties as
a teacher, the crime committed was only a “ligt felony. This
offense is punishable by the imprisonment of not more than 30
days instead of “assualt” upon a person in authority punishable
up to 6 years of imprison correctional.
What happened, then was that when the person attacked
or slapped or boxed was the teacher and the attacker was
the student or pupil, the only aggravating circumtance
was that the act was committed with grave insult or in
utter disregard for the respect which may be due the
teacher on account of his rank. This is contained in U.S
vs. Cabiling, 7 Phil. 769. By that time, there was no
mantle of protection accorded to teachers.
• From then on, there were several instances of assult and attacks against
teachers, instructors, professors, and other public and private officials of
schools.
• With the passage of Commonwealth Act No. 578, on June 8, 1940 which
amended Article 152 of the RPC, this picture completely changed.
• With the Act, teachers, professors and the persons charged with supervision
of educational institutions were raised to the rank of the persons in
authority.
• The intent and spirit behind the amendment are very obvious. They are
inherently rooted in the very person of the teacher who is not merely an
intellectual referee intellectual playfield and in the market of ideas but a
person on dignity and respect.
WHEN TEACHER IS NOT DEEMED A “PERSON IN AUTHORITY”

There are instances when the teacher even while inside the school
premises is not covered by the phrase “person in authority”
• When the teacher goes out of the classroom to talk to a person on
matters not related to the school or his duties.
• Assault upon person in authority, nevertheless, does not consist
merely on attacking or laying hands on the persons in authority. It is
also extends to serious resistance. This means that there is active
resistance or serious intimidation on the part of the attacker
TEACHERS AND THEIR SECURITY OF TENURE: SOME
LEGAL BASES

The phrase “security of tenure” is a constitution guarantee. The

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article IX, B. The Civil Service
Commission, Sec. 2, sub section 3 states: No officers or
employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended
except for cause provided by law. Sub-section 6 also provides:
Temporary employees of th Government shall be given such
protection as may be provided by law.
THE ESSENCE OF SECURITY OF
TENURE
Professor Vicente G. Sinco in his book Philippine Political Law, has stated:
“Nothing can be more demoralizing to a group of civil servants that the fear that
they might be removed from their posts anytime at the pleasure of their superiors.”

Thus, it is essentially true that a demoralized force is an inefficient force. Security

of tenure is a conditio sine qua non (condition that is indispensable) for obtaining
effieciency and effectiveness in the Civil Service.
Security of tenure does not only mean that the employees against illegal dismissal.
It is also guarantees the employees against unwarranted transfers made without
their consent.
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 586

Education During the

Commonwealth
What is Commonwelth Period?
• The Philipines Commonwealth was the name of the
Philippines when it was still controlled by the United
States.

• Manuel L. Quezon was the first Filipino to head an

elected government in the Philippines
 Philippine Educational System during the
Commonwealth Period:

• All schools should develop, moral character,

civic conscience, personal discipline and
vocational efficiency.
• Method used: Memorization, Recitation,
Socialized Recitation
Commonwealth
Moral
Characters
AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE REVISION OF
THE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY
EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES
INCLUDING THE FINANCING THEREOF
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 586
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
7 AUGUST 1940
BE IT ENACTED BY THE NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY OF THE PHILIPPINES:
Section 1. This Act shall be known

as the Educational Act of 1940.

• Section 2. In order to meet the increasing demand for
public elementary instruction and at the same time
comply with the constitutional mandate on public
education, a complete revision of the public elementary
school system is imperative. Such a revision shall have
the following objectives:
• (a) to simplify, shorten, aid render more practical and
economical both the primary and intermediate courses
of instruction so as to place the sane within the reach of
the largest possible number of school children;
• (b) to afford every child of school age adequate
facilities to commence and complete at least the primary
course of instruction;
• (c) to give every child completing the primary course an
adequate working knowledge of reading and writing, the
fundamentals of arithmetic, geography, Philippine
history and government, and character and civic
training;
• Section 3. The Department of Public Instruction shall forthwith
make a revision of the elementary school curriculum so as to
effectuate the objectives set forth in section two of this Act, and
likewise so adjust the academic school year that the school
vacations would coincide as much as possible with the working
seasons in the Philippines. The revised elementary school
curriculum once approved by the President of the Philippines
shall be adopted in all the public schools as soon as practicable
but not later than the commencement of the school year 1941–
1942.
• Section 4. With the approval of the President of the Philippines, the
retired age for admission to the public elementary schools may be raised
to not more than nine years and the length of time required for the
completion of the elementary instruction comprising both the primary
and intermediate courses reduced to not less than five years. Any
increase that may be approved in accordance with this section regarding
the minimum age of school children shall not affect those already
enrolled before the school year 1940–1941.
• Section 5. No child shall be admitted into the public elementary schools
except on condition that he shall remain in school until he shall have
completed at least the primary course. Compulsory attendance as herein
required may be waived in any one of the following cases: first, when
the distance from the home of the child to the nearest school exceeds
three, kilometers and the said school is not conveniently accessible to the
child, considering the means of transportation available; second, where
such child is mentally defective or is physically unable to enter said
school, of which part a certificate of a duly licensed physician should be
sufficient evidence; third, where on account of the economic condition
of his parents, the child cannot afford to continue in school; and fourth,
when the child transfers to a private school.