TEACHING BAD (Yes, a Teacher Can Be Held Liable For Humiliating A Student)

By Siesta-friendly

When teachers are the bullies, it is not bullying, it is ABUSE …
and should not be tolerated!

Recently, a high school senior committed suicide after being allegedly “bullied” by his teacher.

Nothing can match the heartbreak knowing that someone has hurt a child.  The devastation is unspeakable when the hurt child loses his life as a result. 

After reading insensitive and condemnatory online comments against the student and his family for considering filing charges against his teacher, we have to say that “condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance” [unknown origin].  But we digress.

Based on Merriam-Webster online, “bully” is defined as -

Bully    :  [noun] one habitually cruel to others who are weaker
              :[verb] to frighten, hurt, or threaten (a smaller or weaker person)
            : [verb] to cause (someone) to do something by making threats or insults or by using
            force

Thus, a teacher who humiliates, insults, threatens, or hurts a student is a bully; not to mention someone who is acting in abuse of his/her authority.

If we begin by choosing to value that both ourselves and our students have a HUMAN DIGNITY,

then we have a COMMON GROUND to establish a LEARNING RELATIONSHIP.

- Dale Knepper

It is distressing that despite the 25th anniversary this year of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), those in society who are given the custody and care of children are still lacking much in awareness, sensitivity and concern that, as the CRC’s Preamble states, children are “entitled to special care and assistance”, should be raised in an “atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding”, and, “by reason of [their] physical and mental immaturity, [need] special safeguards and care”.

And we are not exactly lacking in laws, rules and regulations made especially for the welfare of children and specifically applicable to teachers (and schools) regarding their roles towards their students: the Constitution, the Family Code, the Civil Code, the Anti-Bullying Act, and DepEd Order No. 40 s. 2012.

TEACHERS: Let your light shine so brightly

that others can see their way out of the dark.

 1987 Constitution

The 1987 Constitution specifically provides, under Section 3 (2) of Article XIV (EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS), that all educational institutions shall “foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, … strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline“.

Bullying, as specifically addressed in the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, includes causing emotional damage and distress.

Dear Teacher: the child that you like least
is probably the child who needs you the most.  

Anti-Bullying Act of 2013

Included in the definition of bullying in Sec. 2 of R.A. 10627 (“An Act Requiring All Elementary And Secondary Schools To Adopt Policies To Prevent And Address The Acts Of Bullying In Their Institutions” or the  “Anti-Bullying Act of 2013”) is –

“materially and substantially disrupting the education process or the orderly operation of a school; such as, but not limited to, the following:

xxx

a.      Any act that causes damage to a victim’s psyche and/or emotional well-being;

b.      Any slanderous statement or accusation that causes the victim undue emotional distress like directing foul language or profanity at the target, name-calling, tormenting and commenting negatively on victim’s looks, clothes and body; and

xxx”

Complaints of bullying and other acts shall be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DepEd or the private school and shall not be brought for amicable settlement before the Barangay, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations. Complaints for acts covered by other laws shall be referred to the appropriate authorities. (Section 10.A)

While defining child abuse to include psychological abuse and emotional maltreatment, DepEd Order No. 40 s. 2012 also considers causing mental or emotional suffering as violence committed on a child.

“School should be a safe place for all students to learn and play

and it is the job of each teacher and administrator to ensure that safety.”

DepEd Child Protection Policy

Pursuant to Section 3 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Department of Education issued DepEd Order No. 40 s.2012, the “DepEd Child Protection Policy” (or the “Policy and Guidelines on Protecting Children in School from Abuse, Violence, Exploitation, Discrimination, Bullying and Other Forms of Abuse”). 

Under Sec. 3.I, “[C]hild abuse refers to the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes any of the following:

1)      psychological or physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;

2)      any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;

xxx”

In addition, Section 3.L states that “[v]iolence against children committed in schools refers to a single act or a series of acts committed by school administrators, academic and non-academic personnel against a child, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or other abuses including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:

xxx

3.      Psychological violence refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the child, such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, deduction or threat of deduction from grade or merit as a form of punishment, and repeated verbal abuse.

4.      Other acts of violence of a physical, sexual or psychological nature that are prejudicial to the best interest of the child.“

We note that Sec. 3.P sets the following guidelines for educators -

“Positive and Non-Violent Discipline of Children - is a way of thinking and a holistic, constructive and pro-active approach to teaching that helps children develop appropriate thinking and behavior in the short and long-term and fosters self-discipline.  It is based on the fundamental principle that children are full human beings with basic human rights.  Positive discipline begins with setting the long-term goals or impacts that teachers want to have on their students’ adult lives, and using everyday situations and challenges as opportunities to teach life-long skills and values to students

While Sec. 8 emphasizes the “Duties and Responsibilities of School Personnel” as follows:

“Article 218 of the Family Code of the Philippines provides the following responsibilities of school administrators, teachers, academic and non- academic and other personnel:

1. Exercise special parental authority and responsibility over the child while under their supervision, instruction and custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.

Articles 220 and 233 of the Family Code of the Philippines, Presidential Decree No. 603, and other related laws enumerated the following duties and responsibilities of the abovementioned persons and personnel over the children under their supervision, instruction and custody:

2. Keep them in their company and support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example;
3. Give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding;
4. Enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their physical and mental health at all times;
5. Furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals;
6. Represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
7. Inculcate the value of respect and obedience;
8. Practice positive and non-violent discipline, as may be required under the circumstances; provided, that in no case shall corporal punishment be inflicted upon them;
9. Perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon them, as substitute parents or guardians; and
10. School personnel shall also strictly comply with the school’s child protection policy.“

Finally, under Section 20, “[a] complaint for child abuse, violence, exploitation or discrimination in a private school shall be filed with the School Head/Chief Executive Officer and shall be acted upon pursuant to the school’s rules of procedures on administrative cases. The penalty shall be that which is provided by the rules of the school, subject to the requirements of due process. The administrative case shall be without prejudice to any civil or criminal case that may be filed.” [emphasis supplied]

The best part of teaching is that it matters.
The hardest part of teaching is that every moment matters, every day.
– Todd Whitaker

Family Code

The Ant-Bullying Act and DepEd Order No. 40 s. 2012 cited above are specifically applicable to primary and secondary school students, regardless of age.

The following Family Code (E.O. 209) provisions on Parental Authority apply to unemancipated minors –

“Art. 220. The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the respect to their unemancipated children on wards the following rights and duties:

(1)   To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means;

(2)   To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding;

(3)   To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;

(4)   To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals;

(5)   To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;

(6)   To demand from them respect and obedience;

(7)   To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and

(8)   To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians. (316a)”

Those exercising parental authority include teachers pursuant to Art. 218 and 233 –

“Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a)

xxx

Art. 233. The person exercising substitute parental authority shall have the same authority over the person of the child as the parents.

In no case shall the school administrator, teacher of individual engaged in child care exercising special parental authority inflict corporal punishment upon the child. (n)”

… what you say and do to other people in your life holds power –

the power to lift someone from the depths of darkness,

or rip them to shreds.
- Kate Walton

Civil Code

But even without legal provisions focused solely on the welfare of students and minors, our laws recognize that there are certain acts, though not deemed criminal, are actionable nonetheless because they have caused damage.  Some of these are acts are called quasi-delicts and are covered by the Civil Code -

“Article 2176.  Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.  Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.”

Children have distinct needs and rights; and because of their age and immaturity, children need special protection.  We have the laws to protect children and their human rights.  We need to make sure everyone in society – especially those with parental authority over children – knows and observes them and are appropriately punished for breaking them.  We adults should know better and need to step up.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

SISTER’S ACT: How an “Outside Catechist” Saves A School From Liability (Aquinas School vs Spouses Inton and Sr. Margarita Yamyamin, OP, G.R. No. 184202, January 26, 2011)

By Siesta-friendly

First of all, we note the long length of time to resolve this issue. The incident subject of this case occurred in 1998.  The trial court issued its decision only in 2006.  The CA decided in 2008 and the SC only this April 2011. The award was for moral damages of P25,000.00, exemplary damages of P25,000.00, and attorney’s fees of P10,000.00 plus the costs of suit.  It took 13 years for complainants to be paid P50,000 in damages.

Anyway, the case as Ponente Justice Abad summarizes, is “about the private school’s liability for the outside catechist’s act of shoving a student and kicking him on the legs when he disobeyed her instruction to remain in his seat and not move around the classroom.”

Based on the Supreme Court’s decision below, an outside catechist is apparently a religion teacher provided by a congregation to teach religion in a school and whose conduct is nobody’s responsibility but himself/herself. 

The Facts

“In 1998 respondent Jose Luis Inton (Jose Luis) was a grade three student at Aquinas School (Aquinas).  Respondent Sister Margarita Yamyamin (Yamyamin), a religion teacher who began teaching at that school only in June of that year, taught Jose Luis’ grade three religion class. 

On July 14, 1998, while Yamyamin was writing on the blackboard, Jose Luis left his assigned seat and went over to a classmate to play a joke of surprising him.  Yamyamin noticed this and sent Jose Luis back to his seat.  After a while, Jose Luis got up again and went over to the same classmate.  This time, unable to tolerate the child’s behavior, Yamyamin approached Jose Luis and kicked him on the legs several times.  She also pulled and shoved his head on the classmate’s seat.  Finally, she told the child to stay where he was on that spot of the room and finish copying the notes on the blackboard while seated on the floor.

As a result of the incident, respondents Jose and Victoria Inton (the Intons) filed an action for damages on behalf of their son Jose Luis against Yamyamin and Aquinas before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City in Civil Case 67427.  The Intons also filed a criminal action against Yamyamin for violation of Republic Act 7610 to which she pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly.

With regard to the action for damages, the Intons sought to recover actual, moral, and exemplary damages, as well as attorney’s fees, for the hurt that Jose Luis and his mother Victoria suffered.  The RTC … ruled in Jose Luis’ favor, holding Yamyamin liable to him for moral damages of P25,000.00, exemplary damages of P25,000.00, and attorney’s fees of P10,000.00 plus the costs of suit.

Not satisfied, the Intons elevated the case to the Court of Appeals (CA).  They asked the CA to increase the award of damages and hold Aquinas solidarily liable with Yamyamin.  Finding that an employer-employee relation existed between Aquinas and Yamyamin, the CA found them solidarily liable to Jose Luis.  The CA, however, declined to increase the award of damages.  Jose Luis moved for partial reconsideration but this was denied.  Aquinas, for its part, appealed directly to this Court from the CA decision through a petition for review on certiorari.”

The Ruling

So is the school liable for harm brought by a teacher to a student? Not in this case.  Why not?  Because, believe it or not, Aquinas School – named after St. Thomas Aquinas, the patron saint of Catholic schools of all things – does not have control over its catechists.  So the school says and so the Supreme Court believes.

The SC found that –

“Aquinas had an agreement with a congregation of sisters under which, in order to fulfill its ministry, the congregation would send religion teachers to Aquinas to provide catechesis to its students. The SC favored Aquinas’ insistence that “it was not the school but Yamyamin’s religious congregation that chose her for the task of catechizing the school’s grade three students, much like the way bishops designate the catechists who would teach religion in public schools. Under the circumstances, it was quite evident that Aquinas did not have control over Yamyamin’s teaching methods.  The Intons had not refuted the school directress’ testimony in this regard.  Consequently, it was error for the CA to hold Aquinas solidarily liable with Yamyamin.”

Wow, it’s hard enough to imagine that any school would have an arrangement where they lose control over how their students are educated but who would believe that a private catholic school would even think of losing control over the religious education of their students? 

The SC refers to Sr. Margarita as an “outside cathechist” yet Sr. Margarita is from the same order, O.P. or Ordo Praedicatorum, the Dominican Order. Why then when it comes to religious teaching, is she deemed “outside”?  The only reason she is “outside” is likely because Aquinas is an exclusive school for boys run by Dominican fathers.  Aquinas’ lay teachers would be more “outside” when it comes to catechism as they are outside the Dominican Order. 

Anyway, the SC writes it “applied the “four-fold test” to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship: the employer (a) selects and engages the employee; (b) pays his wages; (c) has power to dismiss him; and (d) has control over his work.  Of these, the most crucial is the element of control.  Control refers to the right of the employer, whether actually exercised or reserved, to control the work of the employee as well as the means and methods by which he accomplishes the same.”

The SC does not specify, beyond finding the existence of the teaching agreement with the congregation, where the loss of Aquinas’ control over Sr. Margarita Yamyamin’s work begins. 

The SC admits that “[O]f course, Aquinas still had the responsibility of taking steps to ensure that only qualified outside catechists are allowed to teach its young students.”  The SC enumerates the steps Aquinas took to “avoid the occurrence of improper conduct towards the students by their religion teacher”: 

“First, Yamyamin’s transcript of records, certificates, and diplomas showed that she was qualified to teach religion. 

Second, there is no question that Aquinas ascertained that Yamyamin came from a legitimate religious congregation of sisters and that, given her Christian training, the school had reason to assume that she would behave properly towards the students. 

Third, the school gave Yamyamin a copy of the school’s Administrative Faculty Staff Manual that set the standards for handling students.  It also required her to attend a teaching orientation before she was allowed to teach beginning that June of 1998. 

Fourth, the school pre-approved the content of the course she was to teach to ensure that she was really catechizing the students.

 

And fifth, the school had a program for subjecting Yamyamin to classroom evaluation.  Unfortunately, since she was new and it was just the start of the school year, Aquinas did not have sufficient opportunity to observe her methods.  At any rate, it acted promptly to relieve her of her assignment as soon as the school learned of the incident.   It cannot be said that Aquinas was guilty of outright neglect.”

But why does the SC limit its findings on the school’s responsibility only to the above 5 steps to justify absolving Aquinas of neglect?  In any case, aren’t they applicable as regards any teacher “outside” or not?

What now prevents a school from having an agreement with other congregations/groups under which the latter would provide teachers to teach other school subjects so that the school is absolved from any responsibility for any of said teachers’ misconduct?

It seems parents must now check what kind of teaching arrangements their children’s schools have.  As these arrangements may matter when a school’s liability is raised once a teacher does wrong to their children.  Obviously, a Catholic school is not beyond doing a Pontius Pilate by washing its hands of liability for a sister’s act.

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST