MOP, Bk 14, v.5, 97
“7. She also teaches in the graduate schools of private higher education institutions in Tuguegarao, Cagayan during office hours, and when she is in the office, she reviews masteral and doctoral thesis/dissertation. She teaches at the Cagayan Colleges of Tuguegarao, Saint Paul University in Tuguegarao, and worst in Saint Louis College of Tuguegarao, where she is also the Dean of the Graduate School, which is still applying for permit in CHED central office, Pasig City. This is in direct disobedience of the order of CHED central office that CHED officials/personnel should teach only in accredited programs, not in programs offered without permit, which is in violation of Batas Pambansa 232. As Dean of Saint Louis College of Tuguegarao, she is receiving double compensation, and there is conflict in interest in her job as Director of CHED Region 02 and Dean of Graduate School in one college in Region 02.”As gathered by the Commission, respondent Reyes had been a part-time professor at the Saint Louis College of Tuguegarao during the school year 1998-1999 and first semester of the school year 1999-2000 and she held classes either on Fridays from 5:30 – 8:30 P.M. or during Saturdays; that at the Saint Paul University, wherein she likewise taught on a part-time basis, she held graduate classes from 10:00 A.M. until 1:00 P.M. on Saturdays; and that at the Cagayan Colleges of Tuguegarao, she was invited to conduct special lectures during Saturdays or Sundays.
“(1) Whether or not the teaching activities of respondent Reyes in private institutions of higher learning in Region II is expressly allowed by law or do not conflict with her official functions as Regional Director of CHED of said Region?;With respect to the first issue, while respondent admitted the charge of teaching in the private institutions of higher learning, she submitted as her basis for doing so, certified copy of CHED Resolution No. 40-98, which pertinently reads:
“(2) Whether or not the employment of respondent Reyes as Dean of Graduate School of the Saint Louis College of Tuguegarao constitute a violation of law or rules?”
“x x x that officials and staff of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) shall be allowed to have teaching loads, provided, however, that they shall only be allowed to teach graduate and post graduate programs being offered in Government recognzied institutions with at least level III accredited programs.The Commission rejected the CHED Resolution No. 40-98 as a valid excuse and opined, to wit:
“x x x x x x x x x.
“x x x that CHED officials and staff shall be required to submit their application for permit to teach to the Office of the Chairman supported by appropriate credentials’ (Records, p. 89; Exhibit ‘4’).”
“It is the considered view of this Commission that respondent Reyes’ teaching activities at the aforementioned private institutions of learning constitute private practice of her profession as a teacher which conflicts with the exercise of her official function as CHED Regional Director of Region II. Moreover, the Commission likewise views CHED Resolution No. 40-98 upon which the herein respondent has anchored her alleged authority to teach as puny and of no moment in the instant case for reasons, among others, that (1) as an administrative issuance of CHED, it cannot certainly be considered to have amended the clear and express provision of Section 7(b)(1) of R.A. No. 6713; and (2) respondent Reyes has not presented any other evidence in support of her alleged authority to teach, e.g., an application to teach and the corresponding approval thereof signed by the CHED Chairman, which, obviously, are requirements under the said CHED Resolution (Exhibit ‘4’).Regarding the second issue, the Commission said:
“This Commission views as understandable the action of the herein respondent in seeking employment at the Saint Louis College of Tuguegarao which needed her professional services, after she was formally apprised by no less than the then Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education on the non-renewal of her appointment, for which she may not be faulted.”In order to further elucidate on the first issue, Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. 6713, otherwise known as the “Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides, to wit:
“SECTION 7. Political Acts and Transactions. – In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful:On the other hand, CHED Resolution No. 40-98 allows CHED officials and staff to have teaching loads under certain conditions, namely,
(a) x x x
(b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. – Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:
(1) x x x
(2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions;
x x x.”
“These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year after resignation, retirement or separation from public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b)(2) above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his profession in connection with any matter before the office he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall also apply.”This one-year prohibition fully debunks the Commission’s view that respondent cannot be faulted for applying and accepting the position of Dean of the Graduate Studies since anyway her appointment can no longer be renewed. While it is true that respondent is technically no longer with the CHED, but under Section (b) of RA 6713, the prohibition continues to apply one (1) year after resignation, retirement or separation from the service hence she is liable for its violation.