Code of Ethics

1. Legal Dimensions in School Administration
EDD 603
Bolton – Main Campus
Bolton Street
Corner Bonifacio Street
Davao City 8000
The Code of Ethics for
Professional Teachers
ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
JOSELITO G. LOQUINARIO, EDD
Student

2. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
Section 4
Section 5
Section 3
Section 2
Section 1 Case Example
Case Example
Case Example
Case Example
Case Example

3. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
Section 1. Every teacher shall actively
insure that teaching is the noblest
profession, and shall manifest genuine
enthusiasm and pride in teaching as a noble
calling.

4. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
Section 2. Every teacher shall uphold the
highest possible standards of quality
education, shall make the best
preparations for the career of teaching,
and shall be at his best at all times and in
the practice of his profession.

5. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
Section 3. Every teacher shall participate in the
Continuing Professional Education (CPE) program
of the Professional Regulation Commission, and
shall pursue such other studies as will improve his
efficiency, enhance the prestige of the profession,
and strengthen his competence, virtues, and
productivity in order to be nationally and
internationally competitive.

6. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
Section 4. Every teacher shall help, if duly
authorized, to seek support from the school, but
shall not make improper misrepresentations
through personal advertisements and other
questionable means.

7. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
Section 5. Every teacher shall use the
teaching profession in a manner that
makes it dignified means for earning a
decent living.

8. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. NO. 146053 : April 30, 2008]
DIOSCORO F. BACSIN, Petitioner, v. EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
In this Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner Dioscoro F. Bacsin questions the
Decision1
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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A teacher who perverts his position by sexually harassing a student should not be allowed,
under any circumstance, to practice this noble profession. So it must be here.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this petition is hereby DISMISSED, and the decision of
the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 51900 is hereby AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Endnotes:

9. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 164913 : September 8, 2010
St. MARY'S ACADEMY of Dipolog City, Petitioner, v. TERESITA PALACIO, MARIGEN CALIBOD,
LEVIE LAQUIO, ELAINE MARIE SANTANDER, ELIZA SAILE, AND MA. DOLORES
MONTEDERAMOS, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The Court will not hesitate to defend the workers' constitutional right to security of tenure.
After all, the interest of the workers is paramount as they are regarded with compassion under
the policy of social justice.
By this Petition for Review on Certiorari,1
cralaw petitioner St. Mary's Academy of Dipolog City
(petitioner) assails the Decision2
cralaw dated September 24, 2003 and Resolution3
cralaw dated
August 16, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 67691, which affirmed with
modification the Resolution4
cralaw of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), dated
April 30, 2001 holding the dismissal of respondents Teresita Palacio (Palacio), Marigen Calibod
(Calibod), Levie Laquio (Laquio), Elaine Marie Santander (Santander), Eliza Saile (Saile), and Ma.
Dolores Montederamos (Montederamos) as illegal, as well as the Resolution5
cralaw dated
August 31, 2001 denying the motion for reconsideration.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
September 24, 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 67691 finding respondents Teresita Palacio, Marigen
Calibod, Levie Laquio, Elaine Marie Santander and Ma. Dolores Montederamos to have been
illegally dismissed and awarding them separation pay and limited backwages is AFFIRMED. As
regards respondent Eliza Saile, we find her termination valid and legal. Consequently, the
awards of separation pay and limited backwages in her favor are DELETED.
SO ORDERED.

10. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10912, July 21, 2016
AN ACT MANDATING AND STRENGTHENING THE CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM FOR ALL REGULATED PROFESSIONS, CREATING THE CONTINUING PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER RELATED
PURPOSES

11. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
ALLIANCE OF CONCERNED TEACHERS (ACT), ENRIQUE D. TORRES, RODRIGO G. NATIVIDAD,
FRANCISCO A. NECERINA, EVA V. FERIS, LUCIA R. CARRASCO, LEO R. RAMBOYONG, ZENEIDA
PEREZ, MARIA ACEJO, AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS TOO
NUMEROUS TO BE IMPLEADED, Petitioners, v. HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO, in his capacity as
Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports; and HON. GUILLERMO CARAGUE, in his capacity
as Secretary of Budget and Management, Respondents.
Free Legal Assistance Group, Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood Integrity &
Nationalism and Union of Lawyers and Advocates for petitioners in G.R. No. 95590.
Gregorio Fabros for petitioner in G.R. No. 95445.
D E C I S I O N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - -
As the majority avers, these cases are not all about whether the petitioners could have validly
gone on a strike — that question has long been settled by this Court — but rather, whether or
not they have been given due process as a result of investigations arising from the strike. I
submit that due process is a perfectly legitimate issue to debate in Court — an issue involving
the mentors of the nation’s children no less.
I also submit that it is to trivialize the noblest profession, if it is not to trivialize the serious crisis
confronting the state of Philippine education, to dismiss these complaints as if it involved
simple personalities demanding money. If Cariño acted as if it were that, and as if it were a
matter alone of "they struck so I fired them," I submit that we ought to know better.
The State assures education for all. 4 It also gives priority to education, as an indispensable
process in nation-building. 5 There is no harm in listening to our educators.
I therefore vote to grant both petitions.Endnotes:

12. ARTICLE IV – A TEACHER AND THE PROFESSION
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION.
MELECIO ALCALA, PERLA ALCALA, ROQUE BORINAGA,
DIOSDADA BORINAGA, HELEN LENDIO, AND MARY BABETH MAGNO,
Petitioners,G.R. No. 156063November 18, 2003-versus-JOVENCIO VILLAR,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure assailing the July 31, 2002 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
57391 which nullified and set aside the June 22, 1999 Resolution of the Office of the
Ombudsman in OMB-VIS-ADM-98-0103, as well as the Resolution[2] dated October 25, 2002
denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration. chan robles virtual law library
Respondent Jovencio D. Villar is the School Principal of Lanao National High School,
Pilar, Cebu City. In February 1998, Rolando Torceno and petitioners, Melecio Alcala,
Perla Alcala, Roque Borinaga, Helen Lendio, Emma Labaniego and Mary Babeth Mano,
all teachers of Lanao National High School, as well as Asterio Villarante and petitioner
Diosdada Borinaga, teachers of Dapdap National High School, Pilar, Dapdap, Cebu City
(herein collectively referred to as complainants), filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman an administrative complaint against respondent for dishonesty.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In the same vein, respondent in the case should be barred under the principle of estoppel by
laches from assailing the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Therefore, the Court of Appeals
should have resolved the appeal on its merits, considering that respondent's right to procedural
due process was properly observed.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the July 31, 2002 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 57391 which nullified the Resolution dated June 22, 1999 and Order dated
October 13, 1999 of the Office of the Ombudsman, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let this case be
REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for the determination of the appeal on its merits.
SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Panganiban, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.