SC rules in favor of teacher dismissed over pregnancy out of

wedlock
Published Feb. 22, 2019 5:11 pm

1) In the systematic study of “Scientific Reasoning and Critical

Thinking”, there are things that we call “critical thinking
standards” such that they scrutinize statements, practices, and
cultures by the use of clarity, precision, accuracy, and among
others. One of these is relevance. One must see a teacher as a
person of public interest that it is sometimes hard for them to
define where to draw the line between public and private
interests. But as individuals they are also entitled to their
privacy. What they had done as a private matter concerning their
private lives should not affect professional lives. Changing
times require dynamic answers. As Albert Einstein once said, “We
cannot solve problems at the level we created them” so the need
to continually improvise and modify has taken leaps and bounds
just like what the Supreme Court has done when undertaking a
controversial case like this.

2) The affirmation of the Supreme Court with the Court of

Appeals ruling that the teacher is illegally dismissed is only
just. <<< Find the rule that would back this up>>>. It is only
fitting that she be given just compensation for the things that
were done to her.

3) The teacher obviously had a very serious matter to attend to.

When she was hired on 2012 she learned she was pregnant and her
father’s child was well off to be married to another woman. If
the school did not immediately jump into conclusions, the most
plausible thing they could have done was to organize a committee
to investigate the truth of the matter. However, they did the
exact opposite to face – save their institution reaping the very
fruits they tried so hard to evade. They even resorted to more
extreme measures by pressing her to resign and/or was threatened
by harsher penalties.
4) When persons of authority have already passed judgment and
decided on what they want to believe; the case is already as
good as closed. No matter how viable and feasible your arguments
and evidences may be but if the investigating body would no
longer listen, your case has already come to its conclusion. As
persons of high education and position, I am astounded by the
brilliance of the Supreme Court. They chose to think critically
by examining and weighing each sides’ arguments without being
blinded by the societal status and the drama in between. They
found the well – laid patterns of the school to entrap Dagdag.
5) One has to remember that Dagdag was going through a very
rough and confusing time. She was a mother about to give birth
without the child’s father. She was a teacher clinging to the
bits of respect her students and colleagues have for her. She
was a revered member of the society about to be its most
despicable local. The rumors that circulated did not help
either. She was caught in the most compromising position wherein
she had to leave the work she knew or sign away to hold on to
her four years of rigorous education training embodied by her
license. The persons in authority used this murky period of her
life to impose on her what were the only choices she was led to
believe.
6)Conduct is relative. What may be an acceptable conduct for me
may be a disrespectful act for another. There are no set rules
and distinguished parameters in the study of conduct in culture
not unless they are agreed upon by the vast majority of
population. Deep – seated research by immersion has to be done
to ensure the defined scope of what is / is not acceptable. An
act itself just like the one mentioned in the case such as the
conception of a child out of wedlock may or may not be right.
Was anyone else harmed other than the dismay and ruined pride of
Dagdag? Was Dagdag committing abortion? All of the circumstances
that have led to the event were considered and put into careful
scrutiny to look into the case from a holistic perspective.
7) Our court systems follow the principle of jurisprudence. This
follows that once a court has laid its decision on a case, all
the rest of similar cases that would later arise would follow
the same ruling. This avoids inconsistency, promotes justice,
and establishes the reputation of Philippine courts and so much
more on the Supreme Court. This case of Dagdag mirrors that of
the case of Capin – Cadiz versus Brent Hospital and Colleges,
Inc. The parameters of what is “disgraceful” or “immoral should
be determined