This document discusses teachers as persons in authority under Philippine law. It begins by defining a person in authority as someone directly vested with jurisdiction under the Revised Penal Code. Originally, teachers were not considered persons in authority. However, Commonwealth Act 578 amended the law to include teachers due to assaults against them. Now teachers have protection as persons in authority, though this does not apply when they are outside of classroom duties. The document also discusses the legal bases for teachers' security of tenure under the Philippine Constitution.

1. THE LEGAL BASES OF “TEACHERS AS
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY”
• Introduction
• Definitions of “Persons in Authority”
• P in A distinguished from Agents
of Person in Authority
• Original concept of Teachers as
Persons in Authority
• When a Teacher is not deemed a
Person in Authority
• Direct assault differentiated
from resistance and
disobedience
• Limitations

2. INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents a discussion on the
legal bases of “Teachers as Persons in
Authority”. The importance of this dimension in
the life of teachers cannot be overemphasized.
In several instances, the authority of the
teacher had been put to the limelight.
With this topic is to discuss the legalities
behind the phrase “teachers as persons in
authority”.

3. DEFINITIONS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
 Under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines,
a person in authority is one “directly vested with
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or a member
of some court or government corporation, board
or commission.” (article 152, Revised Penal
Code).

4. IN ESSENCE, TEACHERS ARE NOT PERSON IN
AUTHORITY SINCE THEY ARE NOT DIRECTLY
JURISDICTION OR POWER TO
EXECUTE LAWS. BUT “BY LEGAL
VESTED WITH
GOVERN AND
FICTION”
COMMONWEALTH ACT 578 DULY AMENDED
BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF
BY
OF THE REVISED
ARTICLE 152 PENAL CODE,
TEACHERS BECAME PERSONS IN AUTHORITY

5. BY THE PHRASE “DIRECTLY VESTED WITH
JURISDICTION” IS A MEANT THE POWER OR
AUTHORITY TO GOVERN AND EXECUTE THE LAWS,
PARTICULARLY THE AUTHORITY
JUDGES TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE, THAT IS,
CIVIL OR CRIMINAL CASES OR BOTH AND
VESTED IN THE
TRY
TO
RENDER JUDGMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAWS
(PEOPLE VS. MENDOZA, 59 PHIL. 163).

6. THE TERM IN AUTHORITY
PERSONS
ACCORDING TO COURT DECISIONS, ALSO
INCLUDE
FISCALS,
MAYOR, PROVINCIAL
MUNICIPAL
MUNICIPAL COUNCILORS AND
BARANGAY CHAIRMAN

7. PERSONS IN AUTHORITY DISTINGUISHED FROM
AGENTS OF PERSON IN AUTHORITY
Persons in authority should not be taken to mean as
agents of a person in authority. This is because an
agent of a person in authority is one who, by “direct
provision of law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority is charged with the maintenance of
public order and the protection and security of life and
property, such as barrio policeman and any person who
comes to the aid of persons in authority.”
The following are considered as agents of persons in
authority: policeman, municipal treasurer, postmaster,
rural policeman, sheriff, agent of the BIR. So when a
policeman claims that he is a person in authority, he is
absolutely and legally wrong because he is just an
agent of the persons in authority.

8. PERSON IN AUTHORITY AS DIFFERENTIATED
FROM PUBLIC OFFICER
differentiated from public
Persons in authority should also be
officer. A public
officer is “any person who, by direct provision
of law, popular elections or appointment by
competent authority, shall take part in the
the
performance
government
of public functions
of the Philippines
in
or shall
perform in said government public duties as
an employee, agent or subordinate official or
any rank or class.” Article 203, Revised Penal
Code).

9. In essence, therefore, any
person in the government service
is a public officer as defined. But
the important thing is that he is not
necessarily a person in authority
or an agent thereof.

10. ORIGINAL CONCEPT OF TEACHERS AS
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
It is originally conceived that law did not
consider teachers a person in authority. It
was held in People vs. Mendoza, 59 Phil 163,
that when a high school student slapped his
teacher on the check while she was engaged
in the performance of her duties as a
teacher, the crime committed was only a
“light felony. This offense is punishable by
the imprisonment of not more than 30 days
instead of “assault” upon a person in
authority punishable up to 6 years of prison
correctional.

11. What happened, then was that when the
person attacked or slapped or boxed was the
teacher and the attacker was the student or
pupil, the only aggravating circumstance was
that the act was committed with grave insult or
in utter disregard for the respect which may due
the teacher on account of his rank. This is
contained in U.S vs. Cabiling, 7 Phil. 769. By
that time, there was no mantle of protection
accorded to teachers.

12.  From then on, there were several instances of assault
and attacks against teachers, instructors, professors,
and other public and private officials of schools.
 With the passage of Commonwealth Act No. 578 on
June 8, 1940 which amended Article 152 of the RPC,
this picture completely changed.
 With that Act, teachers, professors and the persons
charged with supervision of educational institutions
were raised to the rank of the persons in authority.
 The intent and spirit behind the amendment are very
obvious. They are inherently rooted in the very person
of the teacher who is not merely an intellectual referee
in the intellectual playfield and in the market of ideas but
a person of dignity and respect.

13. WHEN A TEACHER IS NOT DEEMED A
“PERSON IN AUTHORITY”
There are instances when the teacher even
while inside the school premises is not covered
by the phrase “person in authority”
•When the teacher goes out of the classroom to
talk to a person on matters not related to the
school or his duties.
•Assault upon a person in authority,
nevertheless, does not consist merely in
attacking or laying hands on the persons in
authority. It also extends to serious resistance.
This means that there is active resistance or
serious intimidation on the part of the attacker.

14. TEACHERS AND THEIR SECURITY OF
TENURE: SOME LEGAL BASES
The phrase “ security of tenure” is a
constitution guarantee. The 1987
Philippine Constitution, Article IX, B. The
Civil Service Commission, Sec. 2, sub
section 3 states: No officer or employee
of the civil service shall be removed or
suspended except for cause provided by
law. Sub-section 6 also provides:
Temporary employees of the Government
shall be given such protection as may be
provided by law.

15. THE ESSENCE OF SECURITY OF TENURE
Professor Vicente G. Sinco in his
Political Law, has stated: “Nothing
book Philippine
can be more
demoralizing to a group of civil servants than the fear
that they might be removed from their posts anytime at
the pleasure of their superiors.”
Thus , it is essentially true that a demoralized force is an
inefficient force. Security of tenure is a conditio sine
qua non (condition that is indispensable) for obtaining
efficiency and effectiveness in the Civil Service.
Security of tenure does not only mean that the
employee is protected against illegal dismissal. It is also
guarantees the employees against unwarranted
transfers made without their consent.