- Количество слайдов: 53
The Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers in Their Dual Roles as Educator and Parent.
Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers adopted and promulgated by the Board for Professional Teachers through Board Resolution No. 435, series of 1997, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (e), Article II of RA No. 7836, otherwise known as the “Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994”
VIOLATION OF CODE OF ETHICS FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS Article XII, Section 1 -- “Any violation x x x shall be sufficient ground for the x x x revocation of x x x license x x x”
TEACHERS AS PROFESSIONALS Duly licensed professionals who possess dignity and reputation with high moral values as well as technical and professional competence. In the practice of their noble profession, they strictly adhere to observe, and practice this set of ethical and moral principles, standard and values. (Preamble, Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers)
“Every teacher shall merit reasonable social recognition for which purpose he shall behave with honor and dignity at all times and refrain from such activities as gambling, smoking, drunkenness and other excesses, much less illicit relations. ” (Code of Ethics, Article III, Section 3) “A teacher shall place premium upon selfrespect and self-discipline as the principle of personal behavior in all relationships with others and in all situations. ” (Code of Ethics, Article XI, Section 2)
“A teacher shall maintain at all times a dignified personality which could serve as model worthy of emulation by learners, peers, and others. ” (Code of Ethics, Article XI, Section 3)
TO ACT WITH HONOR: To strictly honor contractual obligation with the School Art. VI, Sec. 6, Code of Ethics: “A teacher who accepts a position assumes a contractual obligation to live up to his contract, assuming full knowledge of the employment terms and conditions. ”
DUTY OF TEACHERS (Based on Law) As an EDUCATOR 1987 Constitution states: “x x x The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. ” (Article XIV, Section 1)
As a PARENT Article 218 of the Family Code provides— “The school, its administrators and teachers, x x x engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody. ” Article 219 of the Family Code provides— “Those given the authority and responsibility under (Article 218) shall principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor. ”
St. Joseph College et al Vs. Jayson Miranda (2010) G. R. No. 182353 n An injury that happened during laboratory period n The basic duties of teachers/schools are emphasized.
Ensure students’ safety in every activity n Mere notices are not enough n Provide safety gears/materials n Always attend to your students
Principal Duty or Obligation is To Ensure “Quality Education” What is QUALITY EDUCATION? “x x x making sure that basic education is really solid, because if it is not solid, it affects the quality of secondary education. If secondary education is poor, then the person goes to college unprepared for college work. And if he is allowed to graduate again with a poor quality college education, he goes to university professional education even more unprepared. ” - Rev. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ
In short— “A school, before promoting or graduating a student, must be sure that he/she (the student) is functionally literate to go through next higher level. ”
To ensure Quality Education: 1) Must be COMPETENT and EFFICIENT Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers, Article IV, Section 2— “Every teacher shall uphold the highest possible standards of quality education, shall make the best preparation for the career of teaching, and shall be at his best at all times in the practice of his profession. ”
BP 232 (Education Act of 1982), Section 16 (2) provides— “The teacher shall xxx be accountable for efficient and effective attainment of specified learning objectives xxx. ” Code of Ethics further mandates that— “Every teacher shall participate in the continuing professional education (CPE) program of the PRC, and shall pursue such other studies as will improve his efficiency, enhance the prestige of the profession, and strengthen his competence, virtue and productivity in order to be nationally and internationally competitive. ” (Article IV, Section 3)
“A teacher shall ensure that conditions contributive to the maximum development of learners are adequate and shall extend assistance in preventing or solving learners’ problems and difficulties. ” (Article IV, Section 3)
In short— A teacher is expected to be efficient and competent in the performance of his academic duties at all times. Otherwise, A teacher who has consistently shows his inability to efficiently perform his duties and responsibilities, within a common performance standards should not be allowed to stay in school xxx. The MRPS provides as just cause of terminating a faculty— “Gross inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his duties xxx. ” (Section 3 (a))
Hence, the SC held in Evelyn Peña vs. NLRC that— “x x x schools can set high standards of efficiency for its teachers since quality education is a mandate of the Constitution xxx security of tenure xxx cannot be used to shield incompetence. ”
2) Must EVALUATE LEARNERS (i) Duty to give grades/evaluation Section 16(3) of BP 232, TEACHER SHALL— “Render regular reports on performance of each student and to the latter’s parents and guardians with specific suggestions for improvement. ” and. . . Must promptly render or give grades. Otherwise, the unjustified or unreasonable delay in giving grades constitutes gross neglect of duty.
In the case of University of the East vs. Romeo A. Jader, the SC declared— “It is the contractual obligation of the school (through the teachers) to TIMELY INFORM AND FURNISH sufficient notice and information to each and every student as to whether he/she had already complied with all the requirements xxx. ” “The negligent act of a teacher who fails to observe the rules of the school, for instance, by not promptly submitting a student’s grade is not only imputable to the teacher but is an act of the school being his/her employer xxx. ”
In evaluating/giving grades the following rules of conduct must be observed— Code of Ethics provides— “A teacher has the duty to determine the academic marks and the promotion of learners in the subject they handle. Such determination shall be in accordance with generally accepted procedure of evaluation and measurement on case of any complaint, teachers concerned shall immediately take appropriate action, observing the process. ” (Article VIII, Section 1)
“Under no circumstances shall a teacher be prejudiced nor discriminatory against any learner. ” (Article VIII, Section 3) “A teacher shall not accept favors or gifts from learners, their parents or others in their behalf in exchange for requested concessions, especially if undeserved. ” (Article VIII, Section 4) “A teacher shall base the evaluation of the learner’s work on merit and quality of academic performance. ” (Article VIII, Section 6)
(i) In computing the grades Section 16 (5) of BP 232 mandates that a teacher shall— “Refrain from making deductions or additions in student’s scholastic ratings for acts that are clearly not manifestations of xxx scholarship. ” Hence, Section 79 of the MRPS— “Basis for Grading. – The xxx grade or rating xxx in a student should be based SOLELY on his scholastic performance. Any addition or diminution to the grade in a subject for co-curricular activities, attendance, or misconduct shall NOT be allowed xxx. ”
Code of Ethics provides— “A teacher shall not xxx make deductions from their scholastic ratings as a punishment for acts which are clearly not manifestations of poor scholarship. ” (Article VIII, Section 8) Thus, it is not a matter of discretion on the part of the teachers in the giving of the students’ grades, but rather it is a clear obligation for the teachers to determine student academic marks solely based on scholastic performance. For a teacher to do otherwise, would be serious academic malpractice or grave misconduct in the performance of his/her duties.
In Padilla vs. NLRC, SBC the Supreme Court said— “This Court is convinced that the pressure and influence exerted by (a teacher) on his colleague to change a failing grade to passing one xxx constitute serious misconduct which is a valid ground for dismissing an employee. ”
Padilla vs. NLRC, SBC Wilfredo Padilla = Hired as faculty in the College of Arts and Science of San Beda College in 1980 Leopoldo Martinez = History teacher who failed Luis Santos Ø Padilla told Santos to pass Santos since his grading system is wrong. Ø Padilla initiated a “whisper campaign” to ask other teachers and students to complain
Padilla was dismissed Ground: Serious misconduct Issue: Whether or not Padilla committed serious misconduct which warrants his dismissal.
Supreme Court Decision: Yes. He was legally terminated. He misrepresented Santos as his nephew He exerted undue pressure to Martinez to change the grades of Santos. There is no showing that he did the act since he really cared about all students.
B. As a PARENT: Principal Duty to Exercise Parental Authority and Responsibility Article 218, Family Code provides— “The school, its administrators and teachers xxx engaged in child care shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody. ”
Code of Ethics states— “A teacher shall recognize that the interest and welfare of learners are his first and foremost concern, and shall handle each learner justly and impartially. ” (Article VII, Section 2)
Parental Authority to Discipline “As parents, the teachers shall use discipline not to punish but to correct, not to force, but to motivate; and not to obey with rigid cadence, but to choose to follow the right way. Hence, teachers cannot generally use methods of punishing or such degree of penalties that a good mother or a good father would not likely use on her/his own children. ”
Corporal Punishment - Article 233 (2 nd par. ) “In no case x x x inflict corporal punishment upon the child. ” Definition: An act that inflict pain or harm upon a child’s body as punishment for wrong doing usually through beating and spanking Elements: (a) physical contact (b) to inflict pain
Alberto Pat-og Sr. Vs. Civil Service Commission n Alberto Pat-og a 62 year old teacher punched a 14 year old student Robert Bang-on n Bang-on filed a case and Pat-og was dismissed for grave misconduct CSC CAR Said: Guilt is simple misconduct - suspension CA : Serious Misconduct- dismissal
Resolution of the Supreme Court: n Right of a teacher as a substitute parent never includes the right to inflict physical harm. n Code of Ethics applies to all teachers in the whole country either public or private n Pat-og is guilty of serious misconduct Penalty: 6 months suspension Why: long years of service without bad record –compassionate justice
Ø VIII, 8. A teacher shall not inflict corporal punishment on offending learners nor make deductions from their scholastic ratings as a punishment for acts which are clearly not manifestations of poor scholarship.
Sale of Tickets; Collection of Contribution/ Donations from Pupils / Parents BP 232, Sec. 9 (9) - students have right to be free from (voluntary) involuntary contributions w Ø Improper or unauthorized solicitation of contributions from subordinate employees and by teachers or school officials from school children VIII, 5. A teacher shall not accept, directly or indirectly, any remuneration from tutorials other than what is authorized for such service.
Anita Y. Salvarria vs. Letran College, et al. (296 SCRA 184) The Supreme Court declared-“Petitioner contended that her dismissal was arbitrarily xxx, having been effected without just cause, on the premise that the solicitation of funds xxx was initiated by the students and that her participation was merely limited to approving the same. xxx”
If there is one person more knowledgeable of xxx policy against illegal exactions from students, it would be xxx Salavarria. Hence, regardless of who initiated the collections, the fact that the same was approved or indorsed by petitioner, made her ‘in effect the author of the project. ’”
Anita Y. Salavarria vs. Letran College, et al. (296 SCRA 184) Facts: • Anita Salavarria was employed as a religion teacher in Letran College • Her students asked her to allow them to collect money to buy religious items in lieu of their term paper.
She was questioned for violating the school’s policy against non collection of money. Ms Salavarria said she did not collect but the students did. The school dismissed her.
Decision of the Supreme Court Ms. Salavarria is liable. Why? She is the teacher who is supposed to be in control. By allowing the collection, she committed willful disobedience to a lawful order of her employer. She had a previous offense about illegal collection.
“xxx (Department of Education) considers the act of teachers in xxx contracting loans from parents of their students xxx not only serious misconduct but xxx violation of students’ right to be free from involuntary contribution xxx. ” - USEC Nachura, 13 Feb. ‘ 98
Parental Responsibility The student / pupil while in school, is in the custody and hence, the responsibility of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended.
In Amadora vs. CA, the Supreme Court said-Even if the student is just relaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates, x x x the student is still within the custody and subject to the discipline and responsibility of the teachers x x x.
In Amadora vs. CA, the Supreme Court said-On April 13, 1972, Alfredo Amadora went to His school colegio de San Jose Recoletos to submit his physics project. While he was in the auditorium, he was shot to death by Pablito Damon was convicted and Alfredo’s parenst sued the school of damages.
Is the school Liable for Amadora’ Death? Decision: Alfredo Amadora was under the custody of the school when he was shot because he was there for a legitimate purpose. But is the school liable? No. The mere fact that Amadora was there will not make the school liable.
The school year has ended so the teachers are not duty-bound to report. The school personnel were not negligent because the semester has ended and they are just required to be on their offices to do their clerical works.
Hence-A teacher required to exercise special parental authority but who fails to observe all the diligence of a good father of a family in the custody and care of the pupils and students, shall be held liable for gross neglect of duty.
Chiang Kai Shek School Vs. CA and Faustina Oh Facts: Ms Faustina Oh worked for Chiang Kai Shek School for so many years During the opening of classes, she reported for work but she was told that she has no load to teach. She sued for illegal dismissal
The school claimed that Ms. Oh is not their employee because she was only made to teach subject to the availability of load. The school can not be an employer because it was not duly registered to become a bonafide school under the law. Decision: Ms. Oh is a regular employee.
By her continuous hiring and re hiring, she acquired regular status employment. The school cannot make use of its illegal act of not registering a school to shield itself from doing wrong.
“The Court takes this opportunity to pay a sincere tribute to the school teachers, who are always at the forefront in the battle against illiteracy and ignorance. If only because it is they who open the minds of their pupils to an unexplored world awash will the magic of letters and numbers, which is an extraordinary feat indeed, these humble mentors deserve all our respect and appreciation. ” Justice Isagani A. Cruz Chiang Kai Shek School vs. CA G. R. No. 58028, April 18, 1989