Relevant laws:Case Study Education

Relevant Laws:Case Study

DE GUZMAN, MIA MILAGROS T. III-17 BSE ENGLISH 2015

Who?

DIOSCORO F. BACSIN, Petitioner

-versus-

EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN, Respondent.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/april2008/146053.htm

Petitioner is a public school teacher of Pandan Elementary School, Pandan, Mambajao, Camiguin Province.

Respondent Eduardo O. Wahiman is the father of AAA, an elementary school student of the petitioner.

The Case

In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner Dioscoro F. Bacsin questions the Decision[1] dated August 23, 2000 of the First Division of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 51900, which affirmed Resolution No. 98-0521 dated March 11, 1998 and Resolution No. 99-0273 dated January 28, 1999, both issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC), dismissing petitioner from the service for Grave Misconduct.

(Verbatim)



WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?When is it Grave?

The Court defines misconduct as “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.”8

The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.9

http://jabbulao.com/2011/02/07/legal-note-0023-what-is-misconduct-what-is-grave-misconduct-how-do-you-prove-misconduct-and-grave-misconduct/

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/P-10-2788.html

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/P-10-2788.html

Summary of the Case

AAA claimed that on August 16, 1995, Petitioner touched and fondled her breast. The father filed acomplaint.

Petitioner was charged with Misconduct in a Formal Charge dated February 12, 1996 by Regional Director Vivencio N. Muego, Jr. of the CSC.[5]

Petitioner then brought the matter to the CA under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the recourse docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 51900.

Contrary to the argument of petitioner, the demand of a sexual favor need not be explicit or stated.


Republic Act 7877Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995

AN ACT DECLARING SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNLAWFUL IN THE EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Decision


This petition ( G.R. No. 146053 ) is herebyDISMISSED,and the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 51900is hereby AFFIRMED.

April 30, 2008