Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Book Sale Case! Reyes, J. Facts: G.R. No. 172334, June 29, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Edmar Warain
    Pia, a professor, was accused of directly selling a book to her students for 120 pesos each, violating the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers. Pia argued her students were not forced to buy the books. The Office of the Ombudsman found Pia guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Supreme Court ruled that Pia's appeal was timely filed and that directly selling books to students exercises undue influence due to the teacher-student relationship, upholding her guilty ruling. It commented that as teachers, decisions must abide the law while maintaining legality and morality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Book Sale Case! Reyes, J. Facts: G.R. No. 172334, June 29, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Edmar Warain
    18 views1 page
    Pia, a professor, was accused of directly selling a book to her students for 120 pesos each, violating the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers. Pia argued her students were not forced to buy the books. The Office of the Ombudsman found Pia guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Supreme Court ruled that Pia's appeal was timely filed and that directly selling books to students exercises undue influence due to the teacher-student relationship, upholding her guilty ruling. It commented that as teachers, decisions must abide the law while maintaining legality and morality.

    Original Description:

    Sample Case Digest

    Original Title

    Book Sale Case

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Pia, a professor, was accused of directly selling a book to her students for 120 pesos each, violating the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers. Pia argued her students were not forced to buy the books. The Office of the Ombudsman found Pia guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Supreme Court ruled that Pia's appeal was timely filed and that directly selling books to students exercises undue influence due to the teacher-student relationship, upholding her guilty ruling. It commented that as teachers, decisions must abide the law while maintaining legality and morality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    18 views1 page

    Book Sale Case! Reyes, J. Facts: G.R. No. 172334, June 29, 2005

    Uploaded by

    Edmar Warain
    Pia, a professor, was accused of directly selling a book to her students for 120 pesos each, violating the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers. Pia argued her students were not forced to buy the books. The Office of the Ombudsman found Pia guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Supreme Court ruled that Pia's appeal was timely filed and that directly selling books to students exercises undue influence due to the teacher-student relationship, upholding her guilty ruling. It commented that as teachers, decisions must abide the law while maintaining legality and morality.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    BOOK SALE CASE!

    G.R. No. 172334, June 29, 2005


    REYES, J.
    FACTS

     The petition stems from a complaint[4] filed in December 2001 by respondent Dr. Roman
    Dannug (Dannug), in his capacity as Dean of the College of Economics, Finance and
    Politics (CEFP) of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), against Pia who
    was then a professor at PUP. Dannug claimed that Pia was directly selling to her students
    a book entitled "Organization Development Research Papers" at a price of P120.00 per
    copy, in violation of Section 3, Article X of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers.
     Respondent argued that her students were not forced to buy copies of the book, even
    submitting a certification to that effect from students who had bought from her. Pia also
    claimed that the list of students attached to the complaint was a mere attendance sheet of
    Dannug's students in a research writing class, and not as Dannug claimed it to be.
    ISSUE
     Whether or not Pia's petition with the CA was filed on time;
     Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the Office of the Ombudsman's decision
    finding Pia guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; and
     Whether or not Dannug and Carague erred in implementing the Office of the
    Ombudsman's decision during the time that Pia's period to appeal had not yet expired.
    RULING
     Under Sec. 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 14-A, Series of 2000, which
    prescribes the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, it allows the
    aggrieved party to appeal the decision of the said Office (in administrative disciplinary
    cases to the Court of Appeals) within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of
    the decision or order denying the motion for reconsideration. Equally important is the fact
    that her petition for review was filed within the period asked for in her motion, which
    was 15 days from the expiration of the original period ending March 5, 2003, or until
    March 20, 2003.
     Pia was declared guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. It was
    explained: It is of no moment that the students were not forced to buy the book. It stands
    to reason that the respondent [Pia], as teacher, exercises moral ascendancy over her
    students, such that an offer made by her directed to the students, to buy something from
    her, operates as a compulsion which the students [cannot] easily avoid. x x x.
     The actuation of the respondent (herein petitioner) appears to constitute a betrayal of the
    Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers which amounts to Conduct Prejudicial to the
    Best Interest of the Service.
    COMMENT
     Being a teacher who would want the best interest of the learners, it is important alo to
    consider that our decision must always abide with the existing law and that this will not
    compromise our practices of legality and morality.

    You might also like