FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 183678 : March 15, 2010]

RENE VENTENILLA PUSE, PETITIONER, VS. LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE,

RESPONDENT.

DECISION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari with Prayer for Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order filed by petitioner Rene V. Puse assailing the
Decision [1] dated 28 March 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100421.

Petitioner is a registered Professional Teacher stationed at S. Aguirre Elementary

School, East District, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, while respondent is a
Barangay Rural Health Midwife assigned at the Municipal Health Office of Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte.

It appears that on 10 January 1992, petitioner married respondent Ligaya Delos

Santos-Puse at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Daet, Camarines Norte before the
Hon. Judge Oscar T. Osorio. [2] He had two (2) children with her, and had a church
wedding before respondent found out that petitioner was already married. Respondent
discovered that petitioner had already gotten married to Cristina Pablo Puse at the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Laoag City, Ilocos Norte on 27 December 1986.
Respondent likewise learned that he has two (2) children with his first wife. [3]

Thus, on 2 August 2005, respondent filed a letter-complaint with the Director of the
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), National Capital Region, Manila, through the
Director, PRC, Lucena City, seeking assistance regarding her husband against whom
she had filed a criminal case for "Bigamy" and "Abandonment." She alleged that her
husband has not been giving her and their children support. [4]

In a letter dated 16 August 2005, petitioner was directed by the PRC of Lucena City to
answer the complaint for immorality and dishonorable conduct filed by
respondent. [5] Per directive, petitioner submitted his Compliance [6] dated 31 August
2005 denying the charges against him. He adopted his counter-affidavit and the
affidavits of his witnesses, Jocelyn Puse Decena and Dominador I. Blanco, which were
submitted in Criminal Case Nos. 7228 and 7229 before the MTC of Jose Panganiban,
Camarines Norte. He argued that if respondent's allegations were true, she herself
would be equally guilty of immorality and dishonorable conduct, as she was fully aware
that petitioner was already married when she married him. He added he has not
abandoned respondent or their children and continually gives support for their children.

In her Reply to Answer/Compliance [7] dated 6 September 2005, respondent said she

married petitioner in good faith, unaware that he was already married to Cristina N.
Pablo. When she learned of petitioner's deception regarding his marital status, she filed
a case for Bigamy before the MTC of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte, which found
probable cause to hold petitioner for trial. She found petitioner's explanation "Na ako
ay wala ng balita o komunikasyon sa aking unang asawa at ang paniwala ko ay siya ay
patay na at ang aking kasal ay nawala ng saysay" to be lame and insufficient to justify
his contracting a subsequent bigamous marriage. She claimed that petitioner should
have instituted in court a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death
of his first wife before contracting a subsequent marriage. In the absence of such
declaration, her marriage to petitioner is bigamous and void ab  initio. She added that
the affidavits of his sister and close friend should not be given weight.

In his Rejoinder [8] dated 11 October 2005, petitioner reiterated the arguments in his

Answer and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it was not
verified and for failure of the respondent to attach a valid certification against forum-
shopping.

After due consideration of the complaint, affidavits, supporting documents and

pleadings filed, the Board of Professional Teachers, PRC, Lucena City, found a prima
facie case for Immorality and Dishonorable Conduct against petitioner, and directed
respondent to pay docket and legal research fees. [9] The case was docketed as Adm.
Case No. LCN-0016.

On 16 February 2007, the Board of Professional Teachers (Board), PRC, Manila, found
petitioner administratively liable of the charges and revoked his license as a
Professional Teacher. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:

IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Board finds Rene Ventenilla Puse guilty as
charged and accordingly revokes his license as a Professional Teacher. He is ordered to
surrender his Certificate of Registration and his Professional Identification Card to the
Professional Regulation Commission within ten (10) days from the time this decision
becomes final and executory and to desist from the practice of the teaching profession
under the pain of criminal prosecution.

SO ORDERED.[10]

The Board ruled that contrary to petitioner's contentions, it had jurisdiction over
petitioner and could validly order the revocation of his license, as petitioner was a
professional teacher. Under Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7836, otherwise known as
the Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994, the Board has the power and
authority to regulate the practice of teaching in the Philippines. The charge of
Immorality and/or Dishonorable Conduct is also one (1) of the grounds for the
revocation or suspension of a license of a professional teacher. For entering into a
second marriage without first seeking a judicial declaration of the presumptive death of
his first wife and thereafter cohabiting with his second wife and having children with
her, petitioner is liable for Immorality and Dishonorable Conduct. The Board added that
whether respondent had knowledge of the first marriage or not is irrelevant and further
found petitioner's claim that his cohabitation with respondent was under duress, force
or intimidation untenable. Citing Section 3, [11] Article III and Section 3, [12] Article XI of
the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers, and the Oath of Professionals, [13] the Board
also explained that petitioner's official life cannot be detached from his personal life,
contrary to his contention that the acts complained of were purely private. His
immorality and dishonorable conduct demonstrate his unfitness to continue practicing
his profession as he is no longer the embodiment of a role model for young elementary
school pupils, the Board ruled.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision but his motion was denied by the
Board per Resolution dated 9 July 2007. [14]

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for review, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 100421,
before the Court of Appeals assailing the Resolutions dated 16 February 2007 and 9
July 2007 of the Board.

On 28 March 2008, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal. [15] The appellate

court held that the applicable law was Rep. Act No. 4670 or the Magna Carta for Public
School Teachers because petitioner was occupying the position of Teacher I at the S.
Aguirre Elementary School. Under Rep. Act No. 4670, the one (1) tasked to investigate
the complaint was the Board of Professional Teachers. Thus, it was the Board of
Professional Teachers that had jurisdiction over the administrative case and not the
Civil Service Commission (CSC) or the Department of Education (DepEd) as contended
by petitioner. As to the finding of immorality and/or dishonorable conduct, the Court of
Appeals agreed with the Board in finding as untenable petitioner's excuse that he
believed his first wife to be dead and that his first marriage was no longer subsisting. It
said that petitioner should have applied for a judicial order declaring his first wife
presumptively dead before marrying respondent. It further found without merit
petitioner's defense that the complaint is of a private nature, explaining that his actions
relate to the very nature of his career: to teach, mold and guide the youth to moral
righteousness.

As to petitioner's defense of pari  delicto, the appellate court upheld the Board's finding
that respondent was in good faith when she married petitioner. The Board also afforded
petitioner due process.

On 30 June 2008, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration
for lack of merit. [16] Hence, the present recourse.

Petitioner argues that:

I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN VALIDATING

THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF
PRC-MANILA DESPITE THE LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
SUPPORTING THE SAME AND ITS PATENT NULLITY FOR HAVING BEEN
ISSUED OUTSIDE OF ITS JURISDICTION AND IN VIOLATION OF THE
RIGHT OF YOUR PETITIONER TO DUE PROCESS;

II. THE HONORABLE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF THE

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION (PRC)-MANILA AND LUCENA
CITY, GRAVELY ERRED AND COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION,
WHEN IT ASSUMED PRIMARY JURISDICTION OVER THE UNVERIFIED
COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT IN CONTRAVENTION WITH EXISTING
RULES AND SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER;
 III. THE HONORABLE BOARD FOR PROFESSIONAL TEACHERS OF THE PRC-
MANILA GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF
IMMORALITY AND DISHONORABLE CONDUCT AND SUBSEQUENTLY
REVOKING HIS TEACHER'S LICENSE AS A PENALTY NOTWITHSTANDING
THE LACK OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUSTAINING THE COMPLAINT,
WHICH IN EFFECT VIOLATED THE RIGHT OF YOUR PETITIONER TO DUE
PROCESS OF LAW. [17]

From the foregoing, the issues may be summed up as follows: (1) Did the Board of
Professional Teachers have jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint filed by
respondent against petitioner? (2) Was petitioner denied administrative due process?
(3) Was there substantial evidence to sustain the complaint and to hold petitioner
liable?

On the first issue, petitioner argues that the proper forum to hear and decide the
complaint was either the CSC pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 991936 (Uniform Rules
on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service) or the DepEd pursuant to Rep. Act No.
4670 (Magna Carta for Public School Teachers). Since the charge was for violation of
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, the
complaint should have been brought before the CSC.

We do not agree. An administrative case against a public school teacher may be filed
before the Board of Professional Teachers-PRC, the DepEd or the CSC, which have
concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases such as for immoral, unprofessional or
dishonorable conduct.

Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject
matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals. [18] When the law bestows
upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific
matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that
another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies
have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. [19] The authority to hear and decide
administrative cases by the Board of Professional Teachers-PRC, DepEd and the CSC
comes from Rep. Act No. 7836, Rep. Act No. 4670 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
807, respectively.

Under Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7836, the Board is given the power, after due notice
and hearing, to suspend or revoke the certificate of registration of a professional
teacher for causes enumerated therein. Among the causes is immoral, unprofessional or
dishonorable conduct. Section 23 reads:

SEC. 23. Revocation of the Certificate of Registration, Suspension from the Practice of

the Teaching Profession, and Cancellation of Temporary or Special Permit. -
The Board shall have the power, after due notice and hearing, to suspend or revoke
the certificate of registration of any registrant, to reprimand or to cancel the
temporary/special permit of a holder thereof who is exempt from registration, for any
of the following causes:

(a) Conviction for any criminal offense by a court of competent jurisdiction;

(b) Immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct;

(c) Declaration by a court of competent jurisdiction for being mentally unsound or

insane;

(d) Malpractice, gross incompetence, gross negligence or serious ignorance of the

practice of the teaching profession;

(e) The use of or perpetration of any fraud or deceit in obtaining a certificate of

registration, professional license or special/temporary permit;

(f) Chronic inebriety or habitual use of drugs;

(g) Violation of any of the provisions of this Act, the rules and regulations and other
policies of the Board and the Commission, and the code of ethical and professional
standards for professional teachers; and

(h) Unjustified or willful failure to attend seminars, workshops, conferences and the like
or the continuing education program prescribed by the Board and the Commission. x x
x [20]

Thus, if a complaint is filed under Rep. Act No. 7836, the jurisdiction to hear the same
falls with the Board of Professional Teachers-PRC.

However, if the complaint against a public school teacher is filed with the DepEd, then
under Section 9 of Rep. Act No. 4670 or the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers,
the jurisdiction over administrative cases of public school teachers is lodged with the
investigating committee created pursuant to said section, now being implemented by
Section 2, Chapter VII of DECS Order No. 33, S. 1999, also known as the DECS Rules
of Procedure. Section 9 of the Magna Carta provides:

SEC. 9. Administrative Charges. - Administrative charges against a teacher shall be

heard initially by a committee composed of the corresponding School Superintendent of
the Division or a duly authorized representative who should at least have the rank of a
division supervisor, where the teacher belongs, as chairman, a representative of the
local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teachers' organization and a
supervisor of the Division, the last two to be designated by the Director of Public
Schools. The committee shall submit its findings and recommendations to the Director
of Public Schools within thirty days from the termination of the hearings: Provided,
however, That where the school superintendent is the complainant or an interested
party, all the members of the committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Education.

A complaint filed under Rep. Act No. 4670 shall be heard by the investigating
committee which is under the DepEd.

As to the CSC, under P.D. No. 807, also known as the Civil Service Decree of the
Philippines, particularly Sections 9(j) and 37(a) thereof, the CSC has the power to hear
and decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted directly with it or brought to it on
appeal. These sections state:

SEC. 9. Powers and Functions of the Commission.-The Commission shall administer the
Civil Service and shall have the following powers and functions:

xxxx

(j) Hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted directly with it in
accordance with Section 37 or brought to it on appeal;

xxxx

SEC. 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.-(a) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all
administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for
more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days' salary, demotion in
rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A complaint may be filed
directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a government official or
employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any
department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The
results of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission with recommendation
as to the penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken.

As the central personnel agency of the government, the CSC has jurisdiction to
supervise and discipline all government employees including those employed in
government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. [21] Consequently, if
civil service rules and regulations are violated, complaints for said violations may be
filed with the CSC.

However, where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body or agency
that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of
the others. [22] Here, it was the Board of Professional Teachers, before which respondent
filed the complaint, that acquired jurisdiction over the case and which had the authority
to proceed and decide the case to the exclusion of the DepEd and the CSC.

Petitioner's reliance on the cases of Emin  v. De Leon [23] and Office of the Ombudsman

v. Estandarte [24] to support his claim that it was the DepEd Investigating Committee
created pursuant to Rep. Act No. 4670 which had jurisdiction to try him because he is a
public school teacher, is without merit as these cases are not in point. In Emin, the
issue was which between the DepEd Investigating Committee (under Rep. Act No.
4670) and the CSC (under P.D. No. 807) had jurisdiction to try the administrative case,
while in Estandarte, the issue was which between the Office of the Ombudsman and the
DepEd Investigating Committee had jurisdiction over the administrative case filed in
said case. In contrast, the instant case involves the Board of Professional Teachers
which, under Rep. Act No. 7836, had jurisdiction over administrative cases against
professional teachers and has the power to suspend and revoke a licensed teacher's
certificate of registration after due proceedings.

As to the issue of due process, was petitioner denied administrative due process?
Petitioner questions the authority of the Board of Professional Teachers-Lucena City to
assume jurisdiction over the complaint, arguing that venue was improperly laid as he
and respondent are residents of Parang, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte; they were
married in Daet, Camarines Norte where the alleged immoral and dishonorable conduct
was committed; his professional teacher's license was issued in the Central Office of the
PRC in Manila and renewed in the PRC Regional Office in Legaspi City, Albay; and he is
a Teacher I of S. Aguirre Elementary School, East District, Jose Panganiban, Camarines
Norte.

Moreover, petitioner also faults the Board of Professional Teachers-Lucena City for
acting on respondent's unverified letter in violation of CSC Resolution No. 94-0521
which provides:

Section 4. Complaint in Writing and Under Oath. - No complaint against a civil servant
shall be given due course, unless the same is in writing and under oath.

He also asserts that respondent purposely filed the complaint before the Board of
Professional Teachers in Lucena City because the investigating officer was her colleague
and belonged to the same religious denomination as her. This, according to petitioner,
showed the partiality of the board. The Board of Professional Teachers also allegedly
denied him due process because he was allegedly informed of the retraction of the
testimony/affidavit of his witness (Dominador Blanco) only upon receipt of the Board's
decision.

Petitioner's contentions are without merit.

Petitioner's allegation of improper venue and the fact that the complaint was not under
oath are not sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the complaint. Well to remember,
the case was an administrative case and as such, technical rules of procedure are
liberally applied. In administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are
not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due
process in its strict judicial sense. [25] The intention is to resolve disputes brought before
such bodies in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner possible. [26]

Petitioner was likewise amply afforded administrative due process the essence of which
is an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. [27] The records show that petitioner filed the following:
(1) Compliance-Answer to the Complaint; (2) Rejoinder; (3) Position paper; (4) Motion
for Reconsideration of the Resolution of the Board of Professional Teachers finding him
guilty as charged; and (5) Motion for Reconsideration of the decision of the Court of
Appeals. He attended the preliminary conference and hearing where he was able to
adduce his evidence. With the opportunities he had, he cannot claim he was denied due
process.

As regards his claim that the Board of Professional Teachers-Lucena City was partial
because the investigating officer knew respondent personally, the same was not
substantiated. Even assuming arguendo that the investigating officer knew respondent,
convincing proof was still required to establish partiality or bias. Extrinsic evidence is
required to establish bias. [28] For failure of petitioner to adduce such evidence, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails. [29]
That he was allegedly informed of Dominador Blanco's retraction upon receipt of the
Board's resolution is also of no moment. Even if it were true that petitioner was only
informed of the retraction when he received a copy of the Board's resolution, there was
still no denial of due process because he still had the opportunity to question the same
in his Motion for Reconsideration. This, he did not do.

But was there substantial evidence to show that petitioner was guilty of immoral and
dishonorable conduct? On this issue, we likewise find against petitioner.

Petitioner claims good faith and maintains that he married respondent with the
erroneous belief that his first wife was already deceased. He insists that such act of
entering into the second marriage did not qualify as an immoral act, and asserts that he
committed the act even before he became a teacher. He said that for thirteen (13)
years, he was a good husband and loving father to his children with respondent. He was
even an inspiration to many as he built a second home thinking that he had lost his
first. He wanted to make things right when he learned of the whereabouts of his first
family and longed to make up for his lost years with them. He maintains that he never
violated the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers but embraced it like a good citizen
when he opted to stop his illicit marriage to go back to his first family. He adds that
respondent knew fully well he was married and had children when they contracted
marriage. Thus, she was also at fault. Lastly, he claims there was no substantial proof
to show that his bigamous marriage contracted before he became a teacher has
brought damage to the teaching profession.

However, the issues of whether petitioner knew his first wife to be dead and whether
respondent knew that petitioner was already married have been ruled upon by both the
Board of Professional Teachers and the Court of Appeals. The Board and the appellate
court found untenable petitioner's belief that his first wife was already dead and that his
former marriage was no longer subsisting. For failing to get a court order declaring his
first wife presumptively dead, his marriage to respondent was clearly unlawful and
immoral.

It is not the Court's function to evaluate factual questions all over again. A weighing of
evidence necessarily involves the consideration of factual issues - an exercise that is
not appropriate for the Rule 45 petition filed. Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure,
as amended, the parties may raise only questions of law in petitions filed under Rule
45, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. As a rule, we are not duty-bound to
again analyze and weigh the evidence introduced and considered in the tribunals
below. [30] This is particularly true where the Board and the Court of Appeals agree on
the facts. While there are recognized exceptions to this general rule and the Court may
be prevailed upon to review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals when the same
are manifestly mistaken, or when the appealed judgment was based on a
misapprehension of facts, or when the appellate court overlooked certain undisputed
facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion, [31] no such
circumstances exist in this case.

Indeed, there is no sufficient reason to overturn the findings of the Board as affirmed
by the appellate court. It is clear from the evidence that petitioner's claim that he
believed his first wife Cristina Puse to be already dead was belied by the latter's
declaration. In the affidavit submitted before the CSC in A.C. No. CSC RO5 D-06-012
entitled Cristina Puse v. Ligaya de los Santos, Cristina Puse, petitioner's first wife,
declared that "Sometime in 1993, complainant decided to work in Hongkong x x x.
Since then up to the present, she has regularly sent financial support to her children
and husband. From time to time, complainant would visit her family in the Philippines
at least once a year every year." From this statement, petitioner cannot claim that he
had no knowledge of the whereabouts of his first wife or that she was already dead
given that she regularly sent her family financial support and visited them in the
Philippines at least once a year.

Petitioner's contention that there was no substantial evidence to show his guilt because
respondent did not even formally offer her exhibits also does not persuade. As we have
already said, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied in
administrative proceedings. The fact that respondent did not formally offer her exhibits
the way she would in the courts of justice does not prevent the Board of Professional
Teachers or Court of Appeals from admitting said exhibits and considering them in the
resolution of the case. Under Section 5 of PRC Resolution No. 06-342 (A), Series of
2006, also known as the New Rules of Procedure in Administrative Investigations in the
Professional Regulation Commission and the Professional Regulatory Boards, "technical
errors in the admission of the evidence which do not prejudice the substantive rights of
the parties shall not vitiate the proceedings." Here, we do not find any evidence that
respondent's failure to formally offer her exhibits substantially prejudiced petitioner.

Neither is there merit to petitioner's contention that because he contracted the

bigamous marriage before he even became a teacher, he is not required to observe the
ethical standards set forth in the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers. [32]

In the practice of his profession, he, as a licensed professional teacher, is required to

strictly adhere to, observe and practice the set of ethical and moral principles,
standards and values laid down in the aforesaid code. It is of no moment that he was
not yet a teacher when he contracted his second marriage. His good moral character is
a continuing requirement which he must possess if he wants to continue practicing his
noble profession. In the instant case, he failed to abide by the tenets of morality.
Petitioner kept his first marriage secret to his second wife. Unfortunately for him, his
second wife discovered his true marital status which led to the filing of the
administrative and criminal cases against him.

In Santos, Jr. v. NLRC, a case involving a teacher dismissed from work on account of
immorality, we declared:

On the outset, it must be stressed that to constitute immorality, the circumstances of

each particular case must be holistically considered and evaluated in light of the
prevailing norms of conduct and applicable laws. American jurisprudence has defined
immorality as a course of conduct which offends the morals of the community and is a
bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and to elevate, x
x x Thus, in petitioner's case, the gravity and seriousness of the charges against him
stem from his being a married man and at the same time a teacher.

xxxx
As a teacher, petitioner serves as an example to his pupils, especially during their
formative years and stands in loco parentis to them. To stress their importance in our
society, teachers are given substitute and special parental authority under our laws.

Consequently, it is but stating the obvious to assert that teachers must adhere to the
exacting standards of morality and decency. There is no dichotomy of morality. A
teacher, both in his official and personal conduct, must display exemplary behavior. He
must freely and willingly accept restrictions on his conduct that might be viewed
irksome by ordinary citizens. In other words, the personal behavior of teachers, in and
outside the classroom, must be beyond reproach.

Accordingly, teachers must abide by a standard of personal conduct which not only
proscribes the commission of immoral acts, but also prohibits behavior creating a
suspicion of immorality because of the harmful impression it might have on the
students. Likewise, they must observe a high standard of integrity and honesty.

From the foregoing, it seems obvious that when a teacher engages in extra-marital
relationship, especially when the parties are both married, such behaviour amounts to
immorality, justifying his termination from employment. [33]

The Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers contains, among others, the following:

PREAMBLE

Teachers are duly licensed professionals who possess dignity and reputation with high
moral values as well as technical and professional competence. In the practice of their
noble profession, they strictly adhere to, observe, and practice this set of ethical
and moral principles, standards, and values.

xxxx

ARTICLE II
THE TEACHER AND THE STATE

Section 1. The schools are the nurseries of the citizens of the state. Each teacher is a
trustee of the cultural and educational heritage of the nation and is under obligation to
transmit to learners such heritage as well as to elevate national morality, x x x.

xxxx

Section 3. In the interest of the State of the Filipino people as much as of his own,
every teacher shall be physically, mentally and morally fit.

xxxx

ARTICLE III
THE TEACHER AND THE COMMUNITY

xxxx
Section 3. Every teacher shall merit reasonable social recognition for which purpose he
shall behave with honor and dignity at all times and refrain from such activities
as gambling, smoking, drunkenness and other excesses, much less illicit relations.

xxxx

ARTICLE XI
THE TEACHER AS A PERSON

Section 1. A teacher shall live with dignity in all places at all times.

xxxx

Section 3. A teacher shall maintain at all times a dignified personality which

could serve as model worthy of emulation by learners, peers, and others.
[Emphasis supplied.]

The foregoing provisions show that a teacher must conform to the standards of the
Code. Any deviation from the prescribed standards, principles and values renders a
teacher unfit to continue practicing his profession. Thus, it is required that a teacher
must at all times be moral, honorable and dignified.

The discovery of petitioner's bigamous marriage has definitely caused damage to the
teaching profession. How can he hold his head up high and expect his students, his
peers and the community to look up to him as a model worthy of emulation when he
failed to follow the tenets of morality?

The fact that he is now allegedly walking away from his second marriage in order to be
with his first family to make up for lost time does not wipe away the immoral conduct
he performed when he contracted his second marriage. If we are to condone immoral
acts simply because the offender says he is turning his back on his immoral activities,
such would be a convenient excuse for moral transgressors and which would only abet
the commission of similar immoral acts.

His assertion that he fulfilled his responsibilities as a father and a husband to his second
family will, even if true, not cleanse his moral transgression. In a case involving a
lawyer who raised this same defense, we held:

Before we write finis  to this case, we find it necessary to stress certain points in view of
respondent's additional reason why he should be exonerated - that he loves all his
children and has always provided for them. He may have indeed provided well for his
children. But this accomplishment is not sufficient to show his moral fitness to continue
being a member of the noble profession of law. It has always been the duties of parents
- e.g., to support, educate and instruct their children according to right precepts and
good example; and to give them love, companionship and understanding, as well as
moral and spiritual guidance. But what respondent forgot is that he has also duties to
his wife. As a husband, he is obliged to live with her; observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity; and render help and support. And most important of all, he is obliged to remain
faithful to her until death. [34]
Petitioner's claim that he is a good provider to his second family is belied by the
complaint of respondent wherein it was alleged that he failed financially to support his
second family. Moreover, he is already delinquent as to his duties to his second wife.
How can he live with her, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, render help and
support, and to remain faithful to her until death when he has another family to whom
he is returning to?

All told, petitioner's act of entering into said second marriage constitutes grossly
immoral conduct. No doubt, such actuation demonstratesa lack of that degree of
morality required of him as a member of the teaching profession. When he contracted
his second marriage despite the subsistence of the first, he made a mockery of
marriage, a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.

We now go to the penalty imposed on petitioner. The penalty imposed on petitioner was
the revocation of his license which penalty was upheld by the Court of Appeals. He
claims that such penalty was harsh and inappropriate. He cites Section 22, Rule XIV of
the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations which states that disgraceful and
immoral conduct is a grave offense punishable by suspension for six (6) months and
one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense.
Considering that the charge was supposedly his first offense and taking into account his
years of committed service, the commensurate penalty, according to petitioner, is only
the suspension of his professional license. He refers to the case of Vitug  v.
Rongcal, [35] where this Court considered remorse and the brevity of the illicit
relationship as mitigating circumstances taken in favor of the respondent lawyer.

It must be remembered, however, that petitioner was charged before the Board of
Professional Teachers under Rep. Act No. 7836 and not under Civil Service Law, Rules
and Regulations. Under Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7836, the Board has the power to
suspend or revoke the certificate of registration [36] of any teacher for any causes
mentioned in said section, one (1) of which is immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable
conduct. The Board has the discretion, taking into account the circumstances obtaining,
to impose the penalty of suspension or revocation. In the imposition of the penalty, the
Board is not guided by Section 22 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and
Regulations which provides for suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one
(1) year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense for disgraceful and
immoral conduct. Petitioner, therefore, cannot insist that Section 22 be applied to him
in the imposition of his penalty, because the Board's basis is Section 23 of Rep. Act No.
7836 which does not consider whether the offense was committed the first or second
time.

As to the supposed mitigating circumstances of remorse and brevity of the illicit

relationship, these cannot be appreciated in petitioner's favor, as these circumstances
are not present in the instant case. We do not find any expression of remorse in
petitioner. What we note, instead, is obduracy on his part. Despite the clear evidence
(first wife's statement that she regularly sends financial support to her children and
husband [referring to petitioner] and that she visits them in the Philippines at least
once a year) showing that petitioner knew that his first wife was still alive, he remains
unyielding on his stand that he thought that his wife was already deceased. We also
cannot consider the illicit and immoral relationship to be brief because it lasted for more
than twelve (12) years until respondent learned about petitioner's deception.

Under the circumstances, we find the penalty imposed by the Board proper.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated 28 March 2008 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100421 is AFFIRMED.

With costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, (Chairperson), Carpio Morales, Leonardo-De Castro, and Bersamin,

JJ., concur.