Tampering of grades is not academic freedom
Is the giving of grades part of the teacher’s academic freedom which he can exercise with no restriction or limitation?
This question was answered in the case which we featured in our June 7, 2015 issue. The following are the facts in the case of St. Jude Catholic School, et.l. vs. Ma. Bernadette S. Salgarino, G.R. No. 164376, July 31, 2006.
Bernadette was a Math teacher in a prominent Catholic school. She was tasked to teach Algebra, Trigonometry, Statistics and Analytical Geometry for third and fourth year high school students. On February 15, 1999, or two weeks before the fourth periodical test, she went on maternity leave and was expected to be back on March 19, 1999. During her official leave, Bernadette conducted make-up tests in her house in order to improve the grades of some of her students. However, this was done without the prior permission of petitioners. At this same period, her co-teachers, Ms. Capistrano, Ms. Rivera and Ms. Bongyad substituted for her in her classes. On 2 March 1999, the periodical test for Mathematics IV was conducted and the same was administered by Capistrano, since Bernadette was still on leave.
When Head Teacher Ms. Lopez instructed the substitute teachers to check the test papers and compute the grades of the students in Sections 4-A, 4-B and 4-C, some 4th year students obtained a failing grade in Math. Subsequently, Bernadette, while still on leave, requested Capistrano to deliver to her house the white sheets which contained the grades in Math of her students. Capistrano delivered the white sheets to Bernadette’s home through a student named Eunice. Upon receiving them, Bernadette encircled the failing grades under the column of Daily Work (DW) and placed a passing grade beside each encircled grade. Bernadette asserted that as the handling teacher, she had the prerogative to pass her students. She revealed that she required her students to do some projects and conducted make-up tests for them before she went on maternity leave and to improve the final grades of the concerned students. She avers that out of valid and humanitarian reasons, she indicated a passing grade of 75% beside the grades of those with failing grades.
Upon return of the white sheets, the substitute teachers noticed therein the additions made by Bernadette. The substitute teachers immediately reported the matter to Lopez who, in turn, referred the matter to the Acting Director/Principal of the school. An investigation panel was formed and was tasked to conduct an investigation. The investigating panel reached the conclusion that Bernadette altered her students’ grades while she was on leave, which is, according to them, a case of education malpractice or grave misconduct and grossly prejudicial to the good name of the school. In particular, the investigating committee found Bernadette to have violated Article XV, Section 79 and Article XVII, Section 94, paragraph (b) of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. Bernadette was terminated on the basis of these findings.
A case for illegal dismissal was filed before the Labor Arbiter. The Arbiter ruled that, as a teacher, Bernadette has the academic freedom to pass or fail any or all students per his or her discretion. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed with the Labor Arbiter and clarified that “academic freedom” of faculty members refers to the freedom of teachers from control of thought or utterance of his academic research, findings or conclusions, and has nothing to do with the discretion of teachers to pass or fail any or all her students according to his discretion.
The school contended that Bernadette’s dismissal was for a just cause since she committed grave misconduct and the tampering of the grades of her students has resulted in the loss of the school’s trust and confidence in her.
On the issue of grave misconduct, the Court ruled that:
To our mind, the acts of the respondent (Bernadette) in increasing the marks and indicating passing grades on the white sheets of her students while she was on maternity leave; of not having sought permission from petitioners (the school and the substitute teachers) before conducting the make-up tests in her house, contrary to the policy of the petitioners that permission should first be granted before conducting make-up tests that must be conducted in the school premises; of making the increases in the grades of the students during her maternity leave which is not allowed since the substitute teachers were the ones authorized to compute and give the grades for the concerned students; and of invoking humanitarian consideration in doing so which is not a basis in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools for grading a student, are all acts of transgression of school rules, regulations and policies.
Truly, then, respondent had committed a misconduct. However, such misconduct is not serious enough to warrant her dismissal from employment under paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the Labor Code.
Misconduct is defined as improper or wrong conduct. It is the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies wrongful intent and not mere error of judgment. The misconduct to be serious within the meaning of the act must be of such a grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant. Such misconduct, however serious, must nevertheless be in connection with the work of the employee to constitute just cause from his separation.
In order to constitute serious misconduct which will warrant the dismissal of an employee under paragraph (a) of Article 282 of the Labor Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct complained of has violated some established rules or policies. It is equally important and required that the act or conduct must have been performed with wrongful intent.
There is no evidence to show that there was ulterior motive on the part of the respondent when she decided to pass her students. Also, it was not shown that respondent received immoral consideration when she did the same. From the Labor Arbiter up to this Court, respondent has maintained her stand that her decision to pass the concerned students was done out of humanitarian consideration.
The Court ruled that Bernadette was illegally dismissed.