CHUA – QUA vs. CLAVE G.R. No.

L-49549 August 30, 1990 (Case Digest)

The case was about an affair and marriage of 30 years old teacher Evelyn Chua in Tay
Tung High School in Bacolod City to her 16 years old student. 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.
FACTS:
A 30-year-old elementary-school teacher had an affair with, and married, her 16-year-old
student.

Evelyn Chua was a teacher in Tay Tung High School in Bacolod City, more specifically
the Grade Six class adviser. One of her pupils was 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, 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.
This would have been just another illegal dismissal case were it not for the controversial
and unique situation that the marriage of herein petitioner, then a classroom teacher, to
her student who was fourteen (14) years her junior, was considered by the school
authorities as sufficient basis for terminating her services.
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: 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.”
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.