Landmark Case: CHUA QUA vs. CLAVE G.R. No.

L-49549
August 30, 1990 (Case Digest)

A truly remarkable case wherein the Supreme Court ruled in favor of love. The setting of the case
was in when marriage between minors was still legal, way before the Family Code. In this case, a 30
year old teacher had married her student which prompted the school to terminate her. And against
odds the Supreme Court Ruled in favor of here, hence, creating this Landmark Case. truism that the
heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know.
CHUA QUA vs. CLAVE G.R. No. L-49549 August 30, 1990
Digested Case
A Landmark Case
FACTS:
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.
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.
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.