# Supreme Court Cases on School Heads: A Guide for Principals

What the Supreme Court has decided about principals and school heads: 75 decisions, 11 questions, five rules to know, and what has changed since.

This is the Markdown copy of [Supreme Court Cases on School Heads: A Guide for Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/supreme-court-cases-school-heads), an article on the NASH Reviewer Blog by Mark Anthony Llego, published Oct 31, 2026, updated Nov 4, 2026. Topics: School leadership, Aspiring school heads. NASH Reviewer is an independent practice platform not affiliated with DepEd, BHROD, or NEAP.

The Supreme Court has decided who may discipline a principal, whether a principal can be moved to another school, when a principal answers in court for school money, what counts as dishonesty, misconduct and oppression, when a school head is liable for a learner's injury, and what protects a private-school principal. For public school heads, the leading case on the first question is [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_177580_2008.html), G.R. No. 177580, October 17, 2008 (Second Division). It held that a principal, including one serving as officer-in-charge, is a "teacher" under the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (RA 4670), and that the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority over a public school teacher "is not an exclusive power but is concurrent with the proper committee of the DepEd."

From 1952 to 2026, the Supreme Court issued at least 75 decisions in which a school head, in that role, was a party or central to the issue. Many went the school head's way: the Court upheld exonerations, acquitted a principal and a school directress, and set aside an assistant principal's conviction. Others ended in dismissal or a prison sentence.

Below are the series' eleven questions, five rules, how to read a decision, the compensation cases and what has changed, as of October 31, 2026.

## Key findings

- **Just over half the decisions date from 2000 or later.** Of the 75, 22 came in the 2000s and 16 since 2010, the latest *Corpuz v. Cardoza* (2026). Fifty-three involve public school heads and 19 private; in three, among them *Capili v. Spouses Cardaña* (2006), the decision does not say.
- **Many school heads were cleared.** The Court upheld an exoneration in *Office of the Ombudsman v. Caberoy* (2014), held one final in *Department of Education v. Cuanan* (2008), acquitted a principal in *Mallari v. People* (2004) and a school directress in *Briñas v. People* (2021), and set aside an assistant principal's conviction in *Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan* (1984).
- **Others lost their posts or were convicted.** A dismissal stood in *Rubenecia v. CSC* (1995) and was restored in *Dionisio* (2017) after the Court of Appeals had set it aside, and a malversation conviction stood in *Torres v. People* (2011).
- **Many rulings decided procedure, not guilt.** *Alcala v. Villar* (2003) and *Medrano* (2008) turned on estoppel; *Osorio v. Desierto* (2005) only sent a principal to trial.
- **The rules have moved on.** *Amadora v. Court of Appeals* (1988) predates the Family Code, and *Corpuz* (2026) applied civil service rules older than the 2025 RACCS.
- **Compensation claims are history.** Nine decisions from *Gomez v. WCC* (1977) to *Roldan v. Republic* (1990) granted principals' and head teachers' disability or death claims, most under the Workmen's Compensation Act, which now governs only claims that arose before 1975.

## Why school heads should know these cases

The decisions show how the law is applied to real school heads: who hears a complaint, what evidence is enough, what penalty follows, and what clears a principal. The people in them are real. Many were cleared, and a ruling on procedure is not a finding of guilt.

## The 75 decisions by decade, sector and court

A decision is counted when the Court ruled on a school head's case: a school head (a principal, head teacher, officer-in-charge, or the head of a school, college or academy, including officials sued with it as its school authorities, as in *Bayabos* and *USEP*; a college dean is not counted as a school head) was a party in that role and the ruling concerned them, or the head's acts were central to the issue. The 75 include the resolution in [*Macabuhay v. Manuel*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=23484&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-38568, July 31, 1974 (Second Division), where a principal teacher was a co-petitioner, and [*University of Southeastern Philippines v. Sarate*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=69509&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0) (*USEP*), G.R. No. 247617, November 25, 2025 (En Banc), where the university's officer-in-charge was a petitioner held liable.

Not counted are decisions with no school head as a party, such as [*Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagario*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/nov2005/gr_150920_2005.html), G.R. No. 150920, November 25, 2005 (First Division), a suit against a private school's operator and directors; decisions where the head's role was incidental, such as a principal's birth-date dispute or a ruling on which court tries an election offense (both below); and decisions that only carry a rule a school head needs. Nor is the 1978 *Macabuhay* decision, which ruled only on the superintendent's claims; the principal teacher's were decided in the 1980 resolution, which is counted.

![Stacked bar chart of 75 decisions by decade: 1950s, 1; 1960s, 4; 1970s, 7; 1980s, 10; 1990s, 15; 2000s, 22; 2010s, 11; 2020s, 5. Public school heads 53, private 19, sector not stated 3 (one each in the 1980s, 2000s and 2020s).](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/hub-decisions-by-decade.CtsPz5Kl_z7kDV.webp)

*Figure 1. Supreme Court decisions in which a school head, in that role, was a party or central to the issue, by decade of decision and sector. Data: 75 Supreme Court decisions, 1952 to 2026; decisions with no school head as a party, or where the head's role was incidental, are not counted. Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/sc-cases/hub-decisions-by-decade.png) or [its data (CSV)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/sc-cases/hub-decisions-by-decade.csv).*

| Sector, as the decision states it | Decisions | En Banc | A Division | Court not labeled |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public school heads | 53 | 10 | 39 | 4 |
| Private school heads | 19 | 2 | 17 | 0 |
| Not stated in the decision | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| **Total** | **75** | **13** | **58** | **4** |

The counts reflect decided cases, not how often school heads are sued.

## The 11 questions this series answers

| # | Question | Guide |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Who may discipline a principal? | [Can the Ombudsman Discipline a Principal? RA 4670 Cases](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ombudsman-deped-jurisdiction-principals) |
| 2 | Can a principal be reassigned without consent? | [Can a Principal Be Reassigned to Another School?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-reassignment-transfer-oic-tenure) |
| 3 | Who may protest an appointment; what is nepotism? | [Promotion Protests and Nepotism: Cases on Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-promotion-protest-nepotism-cases) |
| 4 | What if a principal collects unauthorized fees? | [Unauthorized School Fees: What Happens to the Principal?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/unauthorized-school-fees-principal-cases) |
| 5 | Can a principal go to jail over school funds? | [Can a Principal Be Jailed Over School Funds?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-malversation-graft-school-funds) |
| 6 | What is dishonesty or grave misconduct? | [Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct: Cases on Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-dishonesty-grave-misconduct-cases) |
| 7 | Can teachers charge a principal with oppression? | [Oppression Cases: How Principals Must Treat Teachers](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-oppression-teachers-cases) |
| 8 | What if a school head is accused of harassment or abuse? | [Harassment, Child Abuse and Hazing: Cases on School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-harassment-child-abuse-hazing-cases) |
| 9 | Is a principal liable when a pupil is injured? | [Is a Principal Liable When a Pupil Is Injured?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-liability-pupil-injury) |
| 10 | Can a private school remove its principal? | [Can a Private School Remove Its Principal?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/private-school-principal-dismissal-cases) |
| 11 | How long can a suspension last; when is back pay due? | [Preventive Suspension, Appeals and Back Pay for Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-preventive-suspension-appeal-back-pay) |

**[1. Who may discipline a principal.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ombudsman-deped-jurisdiction-principals)** The Ombudsman, the CSC and DepEd's RA 4670, Sec. 9 committee can all hear a complaint against a public school principal, but the Court treats DepEd's committee as the proper forum. In *Medrano* it said the complaint "should have been referred" to DepEd, yet the principal lost the point by taking part without a timely objection, as did the principal in [*Alcala v. Villar*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_156063_2003.html), G.R. No. 156063, November 18, 2003 (First Division); both cases went back to the Court of Appeals on the merits. In [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Estandarte*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_168670_2007.html), G.R. No. 168670, April 13, 2007 (Third Division), a DECS committee already had the case and the principal objected from the start, so the Ombudsman's dismissal of her was set aside.

**[2. Reassignment.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-reassignment-transfer-oic-tenure)** [*Yangson v. Department of Education*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/jun2019/gr_200170_2019.html), G.R. No. 200170, June 3, 2019 (Third Division), held that RA 4670's consent rule "applies to transfers, not reassignments", and that constructive dismissal is "never presumed". [*Brillantes v. Guevarra*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/feb1969/gr_l-22586_1969.html), G.R. No. L-22586, February 27, 1969 (En Banc), had held that protection against unconsented moves "only goes so far as the appointment indicates a specific station". Today, if the appointment does name the school, a reassignment may last at most one year (2025 ORAOHRA, Sec. 13(a), item 1). OIC designations give no tenure and cannot be protested ([*Tapispisan v. Court of Appeals*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_157950_2005.html), G.R. No. 157950, June 8, 2005, En Banc). A reassignment appealed to the CSC "does not become immediately effective" ([*Republic v. Pacheo*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jan2012/gr_178021_2012.html), G.R. No. 178021, January 25, 2012, En Banc, a revenue official's case). The 2025 ORAOHRA states the same rule, except for peace-and-order and security personnel (Sec. 13(a), item 4). For public school teachers it applies only suppletorily to their own laws (item 5). Because RA 4670's Section 6 covers only transfers, it follows that item 4 reaches school heads, though no decision has yet applied it or *Pacheo* to a school head.

**[3. Promotion protests and nepotism.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-promotion-protest-nepotism-cases)** Only a qualified next-in-rank employee may protest an appointment, and only for the appointee's lack of minimum qualifications (2025 RACCS, Sec. 116). [*Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=40132&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999 (En Banc), revived a vocational school administrator's dismissal for nepotism over two sons appointed under his immediate supervision: it was "immaterial who the appointing or recommending authority is". An officer-in-charge principal's graft conviction for refusing to implement two promotions was affirmed ([*Catacutan v. People*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=56908&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 175991, August 31, 2011, First Division), and so was a principal's dismissal for taking money from teachers for appointments ([*De la Cruz v. DECS-CAR*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=47292&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 146739, January 16, 2004, Second Division).

**[4. Unauthorized fees.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/unauthorized-school-fees-principal-cases)** Of the seven public-school decisions in the series on money collected from learners, teachers or parents, or on canteen money, none decided whether a collection was lawful. [*Osorio v. Desierto*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=48012&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 156652, October 13, 2005 (Second Division), only let graft and malversation charges against a principal go to trial. [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_165416_2008.html), G.R. Nos. 165416, 165584 and 165731, January 22, 2008 (First Division), reinstated the Ombudsman's dismissal of a principal charged with collecting unauthorized fees and not remitting authorized ones, ruling on the Ombudsman's power. [*Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=28208&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 56170, January 31, 1984 (En Banc), set aside an assistant principal's graft conviction over money he received from teachers. DepEd's collection rules have since changed (DO 13, s. 2022; DM 041, s. 2024).

**[5. School funds.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-malversation-graft-school-funds)** In [*Torres v. People*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_175074_2011.html), G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011 (Third Division), the Court said a public high school principal "may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and misappropriates the same"; Torres's conviction stood because his appeal went to the wrong court. [*Oani v. People*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_139984_2005.html), G.R. No. 139984, March 31, 2005 (Second Division), affirmed a principal's two graft convictions over purchases made without the public bidding the law required. A private school principal who did not remit tuition was guilty of qualified theft, not estafa ([*Reside v. People*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jul2020/gr_210318_2020.html), G.R. No. 210318, July 28, 2020, First Division).

**[6. Dishonesty and grave misconduct.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-dishonesty-grave-misconduct-cases)** [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Santos*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166116_2006.html), G.R. No. 166116, March 31, 2006 (Second Division), reinstated a principal's dismissal for dishonesty, grave misconduct and a violation of RA 6713, including a time record that showed her at school while she attended a private school's event. In [*Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v. Dionisio*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_220700_2017.html), G.R. No. 220700, July 10, 2017 (First Division), a principal who leased out school land without authority or bidding, and could not show receipts for the lease money she said went to school projects, was dismissed for grave misconduct. In [*Corpuz v. Cardoza*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70576), G.R. No. 253422, June 2, 2026 (Second Division), grave misconduct was not proved, and the penalty became six months' suspension.

**[7. Oppression.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-oppression-teachers-cases)** [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Caberoy*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_188066_2014.html), G.R. No. 188066, October 22, 2014 (Third Division), upheld a principal's exoneration over a teacher's delayed pay: "bad faith must attend the act complained of". Oppression findings stood in [*Rubenecia v. Civil Service Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=37092&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 115942, May 31, 1995 (En Banc), for not paying two teachers on time, and in *Masing*, where the Court reinstated an Ombudsman suspension on a complaint that included oppression, without reviewing the evidence. A principal accused of masterminding the shooting of a teacher was acquitted ([*Mallari v. People*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=46435&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 153911, December 10, 2004, Third Division), and one who only recommended a teacher's reassignment was "a purely recommendatory authority" ([*Orcino v. Civil Service Commission*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/oct1990/gr_92869_1990.html), G.R. No. 92869, October 18, 1990, En Banc).

**[8. Harassment, child abuse and hazing.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-harassment-child-abuse-hazing-cases)** In [*Department of Education v. Cuanan*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_169013_2008.html), G.R. No. 169013, December 16, 2008 (En Banc), a principal's exoneration of sexual harassment by the CSC had become final, and a later CSC order dismissing him was void because DepEd never served him its pleadings. [*Briñas v. People*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=66895&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021 (First Division), acquitted a school directress of child abuse because the specific intent the charge required was not proved. In *Medrano*, an affidavit of desistance did not end the administrative case. [*People v. Bayabos*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=60250&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. Nos. 171222 and 174786, February 18, 2015 (First Division), affirmed the quashal of a hazing charge against officers of the Philippine Merchant Marine Academy because the information omitted an element of the offense.

**[9. Pupil injuries.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-liability-pupil-injury)** In [*Apolinario v. Heirs of De Los Santos*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/nov2024/gr_219686_2024.html), G.R. No. 219686, November 27, 2024 (First Division), a principal who "closely supervised" a school work activity and had a pupil cut a banana plant beside the highway was liable for a passing motorist's death. In [*Capili v. Spouses Cardaña*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=49984&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 157906, November 2, 2006 (Third Division), a principal was liable for a dead tree that killed a pupil: as principal she had to oversee the safety of the premises, and even after delegating the tree's removal "she exercises supervision over her assignee" (the decision does not say whether the school was public). Since August 3, 1988, Family Code Articles 218 and 219 also apply to minors, alongside Article 2180, as in *USEP* (2025). A private school also answers on its contract to keep learners safe ([*Mother Goose Special School System, Inc.*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=69083&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 267331, January 20, 2025, Second Division).

**[10. Private-school principals.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/private-school-principal-dismissal-cases)** In [*La Salette of Santiago, Inc. v. NLRC*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/mar1991/gr_82918_1991.html), G.R. No. 82918, March 11, 1991 (First Division), a teacher appointed principal had no "second or additional tenure" in the post and kept the right to return to her teaching post. Dismissal for loss of trust must rest on "clearly established facts" ([*AMA Computer College, Inc. v. Garay*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=50927&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 162468, January 23, 2007, Second Division). A university president elected by the board to an office in the by-laws is a corporate officer whose removal the NLRC cannot hear ([*Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Maglaya*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=62398&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 212774, January 23, 2017, Second Division), and a head who lacks the required qualifications need not be put back in the post ([*Geslani v. NLRC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=37602&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 113597, February 13, 1996, First Division).

**[11. Preventive suspension, appeals and back pay.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-preventive-suspension-appeal-back-pay)** DepEd's preventive suspension lasts at most 90 days (2025 RACCS, Sec. 37; DO 49, s. 2006, Sec. 18), the Ombudsman's six months (RA 6770, Sec. 24). [*Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=34088&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 96131, September 6, 1991 (En Banc), held that a principal's suspension under RA 3019, Sec. 13 may not exceed 90 days. [*Civil Service Commission v. Cruz*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=56880&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 187858, August 9, 2011 (En Banc), held that suspension pending investigation is not paid, but time out of work pending a successful appeal is. In [*Macabuhay v. Manuel*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=25853&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-40872, December 29, 1980 (En Banc), a principal teacher's 1975 dismissal through the President's purge could not stand, and her stalled investigation had to end in 60 days or, absent delay on her part, she could reassume her post. The Court refused to absolve her outright; Justice Teehankee, joined by Chief Justice Fernando, would have.

## Five rules every school head should know

1. **[The Ombudsman shares jurisdiction over a public school principal with DepEd's RA 4670 committee, but the Court calls DepEd the proper forum, and a timely objection can decide the case](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ombudsman-deped-jurisdiction-principals)** (*Medrano*, 2008; *Estandarte*, 2007).
2. **[If your appointment names no school, you may be reassigned without consent; RA 4670's consent rule covers transfers only](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-reassignment-transfer-oic-tenure)** (*Yangson*, 2019).
3. **[A public school principal who has custody or control of public funds because of the post is an accountable officer and can be convicted of malversation](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-malversation-graft-school-funds)** (*Torres*, 2011).
4. **[Since August 3, 1988, the school, its administrators and teachers are principally and solidarily liable for damage a minor causes in an authorized activity unless they prove the proper diligence, and Article 2180 still applies alongside](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-liability-pupil-injury)** (*USEP*, 2025; *Apolinario*, 2024).
5. **[Preventive suspension in a DepEd case lasts at most 90 days and is not paid if the order was valid; time out of work pending an appeal that ends in exoneration or a reprimand is paid](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-preventive-suspension-appeal-back-pay)** (*CSC v. Cruz*, 2011).

## Rulings, obiter and facts: how to read a case

**The ruling** is what the Court decided on the issue before it, with the reason it needed. In *Yangson*, it is that Section 6 of RA 4670 "applies to transfers, not reassignments", and later cases follow it.

**Obiter** is what the Court said that it did not need to decide. In [*Desierto v. Epistola*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=62108&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 161425, November 23, 2016 (Third Division), the Court denied the petition as moot and only then restated *Medrano*, so that passage is obiter. *Yangson*'s remark that the Court was "aghast that grammatical errors pervade the Memorandum" decided nothing.

**The facts** belong to one case. A delayed salary was not oppression in *Caberoy*, where the teacher's late time record contributed and others were treated alike, but late pay was among the findings that stood in *Rubenecia*.

Four more checks:

- **Was it decided on the merits?** *Alcala* and *Medrano* turned on estoppel, *Torres* on the wrong appeal, and *Masing* on the Ombudsman's power.
- **Who said it?** In [*St. Joseph's College v. Miranda*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=55034&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010 (Second Division), the words "culpable under the doctrine of command responsibility" are the trial court's, quoted by the Court.
- **How did the Justices vote?** [*Palisoc v. Brillantes*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1971/oct1971/gr_29025_1971.html), G.R. No. L-29025, October 4, 1971 (En Banc), was decided 6–4, and [*St. Francis High School v. Court of Appeals*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=33794&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 82465, February 25, 1991 (Second Division), 3–2. A dissent shows where a later Court might go.
- **What law did it apply, and is it final?** [*Amadora v. Court of Appeals*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/apr1988/gr_l-47745_1988.html), G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988 (En Banc), applied Article 2180 to a 1972 incident, before the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. *Corpuz* (June 2, 2026) is the latest decision as of October 2026, and it may not yet be final.

## Common misreadings

These misreadings circulate; each is stated in bold, then corrected.

- **Only DepEd can discipline a principal; or, the Ombudsman can do as it likes.** Neither. Authority is concurrent, DepEd's committee is the proper forum, and a timely objection matters. [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Galicia*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=53205&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 167711, October 10, 2008 (En Banc), begins: "GENERALLY, the Ombudsman must yield to the Division School Superintendent".
- ***Galicia* is a case the teacher lost.** He was held estopped on the forum, but his exoneration on the merits stood.
- ***Office of the Ombudsman v. Madriaga* is an RA 4670 case.** [*Madriaga*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_164316_2006.html), G.R. No. 164316, September 27, 2006 (Third Division), never mentions RA 4670. It held that the Ombudsman's authority to impose penalties "is not merely recommendatory".
- **Under *Amadora*, the Family Code makes the principal liable.** *Amadora* (April 1988) applied Article 2180 and never mentions the Family Code.
- **A principal is liable only if he personally supervised the pupil.** In *Palisoc* the head of a school of arts and trades was liable as head; in *Capili* the principal was liable for her own negligence; and the Family Code names administrators.
- **Administrators are jointly liable.** Article 219 makes them "principally and solidarily liable": each can be made to pay the whole amount.
- ***Brillantes* shows that RA 4670 lets DepEd move principals without consent.** Brillantes was reassigned in 1963, three years before RA 4670 was approved. Today's rule is *Yangson*'s: Section 6 covers transfers, not reassignments.
- **DO 42, s. 2007 makes every principal's appointment non-station-specific.** DO 007, s. 2023 lists it among the orders it repeals or amends to the extent inconsistent. Check your own appointment paper.

## Other decisions: pay, retirement and compensation claims

No other post digests these pay, post and compensation claims of principals and head teachers. Four are not counted in Figure 1: three claimants (*Calvero*, *Librea*, *Villamayor*) had become supervisors, and *Gravador* turned on a birth date that would decide any employee's retirement.

| Decision | Claimant | Claim | What the Court did |
|---|---|---|---|
| [*Alzate v. Aldana*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=16238&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-14407, February 29, 1960 (division not stated) | High school principal | Salary adjustment | Exhaustion excused because the funds would revert at year-end; remanded |
| [*Alzate v. Aldana*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=18434&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-18085, May 31, 1963 (division not stated) | Same principal, retired | One more salary rate | Mandamus denied: "no clear legal duty" to recommend it |
| [*Gravador v. Mamigo*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=20185&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-24989, July 21, 1967 (division not stated) | Principal separated as over 65 | His post | Judgment for him affirmed: born in 1901, not 1897, as his own records, a brother's 1924 statement and an older brother's 1898 birth showed |
| [*Gomez v. WCC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=24818&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-43617, February 28, 1977 (First Division) | Head teacher, then Principal I | Disability | Granted: the award was final, and the presumption was not rebutted |
| [*Soliven v. WCC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=24527&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-44763, June 30, 1977 (First Division); reconsideration denied October 27, 1977 | Head teacher | Disability | Final referees' awards reinstated |
| [*Magat v. WCC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=24852&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-43705, December 21, 1977 (First Division) | Principal teacher | Disability | Granted |
| [*Ligason v. WCC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=25200&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-43691, September 30, 1978 (First Division) | "Principal and In Charge of the District" | Disability | Granted: the award was final, and the claim had merit anyway |
| [*Alabat v. WCC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=25268&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-43942, September 30, 1978 (First Division) | Head teacher | Disability | Granted: the presumption was not rebutted |
| [*Vda. de Torbela v. ECC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=26183&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-42627, February 21, 1980 (First Division) | Principal killed on his way to school, 1975 | Death | Granted: injured "at a point reasonably proximate to the place of work"; one Justice dissented |
| [*Cabalquinto v. Republic*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=26613&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-45141, January 27, 1981 (First Division) | Head teacher, then Principal I | Disability | Granted: the presumption was not overcome |
| [*Calvero v. ECC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=27396&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 52059, September 30, 1982 (First Division) | Former principal, then district supervisor | Disability | Granted: the claim accrued in 1971, under the old Act |
| [*Abaya v. ECC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=31568&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 64255, August 16, 1989 (First Division) | Retired principal teacher | Disability | Granted as permanent total disability |
| [*Roldan v. Republic*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=32900&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-45618, February 15, 1990 (First Division) | Head teacher | Disability | Final referee's award reinstated |
| [*Librea v. ECC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=33734&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 58879, November 14, 1991 (Third Division) | Former Principal I, then division supervisor | Death | Granted: the work increased the risk of the illness |
| [*GSIS v. Villamayor*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=50120&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 154386, August 22, 2006 (First Division) | Former principal, then district supervisor | Death | Denied: no substantial evidence linking the illness to the work |

Most of these claims ran under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act No. 3428), which presumed an illness that arose during employment to be work-connected (*Alabat*). That Act now governs only claims that accrued before 1975: claims accruing earlier "shall be determined in accordance with the laws in force at the time of their accrual" (Labor Code, Art. 293). The Labor Code's employees' compensation title "shall apply only to injury, sickness, disability or death occurring on or after January 1, 1975", and the Workmen's Compensation Commission kept jurisdiction over old cases only "until March 31, 1976" ([Labor Code](https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1974/pd_442_1974.html), Arts. 208 and 296 as originally numbered). So *Calvero* still applied the old Act in 1982. Under PD 626, as applied in *Librea* and *Villamayor*, a claimant must show a listed occupational illness or prove that work increased the risk.

Two more decisions, neither counted in Figure 1: in [*COMELEC v. Noynay*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=39640&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 132365, July 9, 1998 (En Banc), a public school principal and two teachers were charged with partisan political activity, and the Court held that the Regional Trial Court tries election offenses, without ruling on guilt. In [*Public Schools District Supervisors Association v. De Jesus*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=49724&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 157286, June 16, 2006 (En Banc), the Court described the RA 9155 model, under which the principal, as school head, administers "all personnel, physical, and fiscal resources of the school".

## What changed since the cases

The main changes, as of October 31, 2026:

| Rule | Status on October 31, 2026 | What it changes |
|---|---|---|
| [2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service](https://csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/paio/2025_ORAOHRA_AND_RACCS/2025_RACCS_19_September.pdf) (2025 RACCS), CSC Res. No. 2500357 | In force since August 4, 2025; repealed the 2017 RACCS | Offenses, penalties, preventive suspension, appeals and back pay |
| [2025 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions](https://csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/irmo/mc/2025/MC%20No.%2008%20s.%202025.pdf) (2025 ORAOHRA), CSC MC No. 08, s. 2025 | In force since August 3, 2025; repealed the 2017 ORAOHRA and the 2005 reassignment and designation rules | Reassignment, detail and designation |
| Ombudsman Revised Rules of Procedure, A.O. No. 1, s. 2026 | Signed January 19, 2026; effective 15 days after publication and ONAR filing (Rule X, Sec. 11) | A motion for reconsideration or appeal "shall not stay the immediate execution" of an administrative decision (Rule VIII, Sec. 8) |
| [RA 4670](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1966/ra_4670_1966.html), Magna Carta for Public School Teachers | Not amended; [DM 057, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/09/22/september-21-2026-dm-057-s-2026-creation-of-a-national-technical-working-group-ntwg-for-the-development-of-roadmap-for-the-magna-carta-for-public-school-teachers-republic-act-no-4670/) creates a working group to review it | Sec. 9 committee and Sec. 6 transfer rules still govern |
| Family Code Arts. 218–219 | In force since August 3, 1988 | Liability for minors in authorized activities, alongside Art. 2180 |
| [RA 12009](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2024/ra_12009_2024.html), New Government Procurement Act | Approved July 20, 2024; repealed RA 9184 (Sec. 115), which stayed in force until RA 12009's IRR took effect (Sec. 113) | Governs procurement today; earlier purchases, such as *Oani*'s, follow the rules then in force |
| [RA 11313](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/90094), Safe Spaces Act (2019); [RA 10627](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/58226), Anti-Bullying Act (2013); [DO 40, s. 2012](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2012/05/14/do-40-s-2012-deped-child-protection-policy/), supplemented by [DO 006, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/03/24/march-24-2026-do-006-s-2026-guidelines-on-ensuring-a-safe-and-motivating-learning-environment-esmle/) | In force; [RA 7877](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1995/ra_7877_1995.html) (1995) remains in force alongside RA 11313 | Sexual harassment, bullying and the school head's duty to act on reports |
| [RA 10951](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10951_2017.html) | Amended Revised Penal Code Art. 217 | Raised the peso amounts that set malversation penalties |
| [RA 11053](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/85055), Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 | Amended RA 8049 | Widened hazing after *Bayabos*; school authorities who allowed or consented to it, or knew of it and failed to prevent or promptly report it, are accomplices and "administratively accountable" (Sec. 14) |

DepEd's own procedure is still [DO 49, s. 2006](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2006/12/12/do-49-s-2006-revised-rules-of-procedure-of-the-department-of-education-in-administrative-cases-amended-by/), under which the disciplining authorities are the Secretary and the Regional Directors, and "A Grievance Committee is not allowed to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases" (Secs. 1 and 2). Work-related complaints go through the grievance machinery of [DO 35, s. 2004](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2004/06/03/do-35-s-2004-revision-of-the-grievance-machineries-of-the-department-of-education/). Both are explained, with what still applies in 2026, in [DepEd Administrative Cases and Grievances: DO 49 and DO 35](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-administrative-cases-grievances-guide).

## What this means for school heads

- **Keep your appointment paper** and know whether it names a school (*Yangson*).
- **When a complaint is filed, find out where and when,** raise any objection to the forum in your first pleading, and answer the charge anyway (*Medrano*; *Estandarte*).
- **Treat school money as your personal accountability:** receipts, procurement rules, and each fund for its purpose (*Torres*; *Dionisio*). See [RA 6713 for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-ethics-internal-control) and [DepEd School MOOE](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-school-mooe).
- **Put activities and hazards in writing,** check delegated hazards, and handle incidents promptly and on the record (*Apolinario*; *Capili*; *Mother Goose*). See [DepEd Child Protection and Anti-Bullying](https://nash.com.ph/blog/child-protection-anti-bullying-school-heads).
- **Apply one rule to every teacher and record your reasons** (*Caberoy*; *Orcino*). See [Human Resource Management for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-human-resource-management).
- **Count deadlines from the day you receive an order.** A wrong remedy cost principals their appeals in *Torres* and in [*Balbastro v. Junio*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=51624&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 154678, July 17, 2007 (Third Division).
- **Get advice early** from your Schools Division Office's legal unit or a lawyer.

See also [PPSSH Domain 1](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-1-leading-strategically), [Domain 2](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-2-managing-school-operations), [Domain 4](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-4-developing-self-and-others) and [RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ra-9155-school-head-duties).

## How the NASH may test this

The item below is an original practice item, scored 3 (Relational), 2 (Multistructural), 1 (Unistructural) or 0 (Prestructural). An option that breaks a rule scores 0.

### Question 1

*Indicator 1.3.1, Policy implementation and review. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.*

At a meeting on a planned 2026 field trip, a teacher says the principal of an academic school can never be liable for a pupil's injury, citing *Amadora v. Court of Appeals* (1988). Which response best reflects how to read that decision?

- **A.** The teacher is right: under *Amadora*, an academic-school principal is liable only as teacher-in-charge, whatever the incident's date.
- **B.** *Amadora* applied Civil Code Article 2180 to a 1972 incident.
- **C.** *Amadora* predates the Family Code; since August 3, 1988, Articles 218 and 219 also make the school, its administrators and teachers principally and solidarily liable for damage a minor causes in authorized activities, unless they prove the proper diligence.
- **D.** *Amadora* decided a 1972 incident under Article 2180. For a 2026 trip, Articles 218 and 219 also apply, so liability turns on whether the trip is an authorized activity and whether the school and its administrators prove the proper diligence; Article 2180's teacher-in-charge test still applies.

**Answer and explanation**

**Best answer: D.** Points: A = 0, B = 1, C = 2, D = 3.

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** It states a pre-1988 rule as current law for a 2026 incident.
- **B (1 point, Unistructural).** True, but it does not say why the date matters or what applies now.
- **C (2 points, Multistructural).** Right on both laws, but it does not apply them to the planned trip.
- **D (3 points, Relational).** It reads the case by its date and law and applies the current rule to the trip.

**Why.** *Amadora* (April 15, 1988) applied Article 2180 to an incident on April 13, 1972; the Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988 (*Tayag v. Court of Appeals*, 1992). Article 219 makes the school, its administrators and teachers "principally and solidarily liable" unless "they exercised the proper diligence required under the particular circumstances" (as quoted in *USEP*, 2025), and *Apolinario* (2024) still applied Article 2180's teacher-in-charge test.

*Indicator 1.3.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of policy implementation and review to ensure that school operations are consistent with national and local laws, regulations and issuances.*

*Sources: Amadora v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988; University of Southeastern Philippines v. Sarate, G.R. No. 247617, November 25, 2025; Apolinario v. Heirs of De Los Santos, G.R. No. 219686, November 27, 2024; Tayag v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95229, June 9, 1992.*

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

## Frequently asked questions

### Which decisions matter most to a public school principal?

Start with the five rules above: *Medrano* (2008) on who may discipline you, *Yangson* (2019) on reassignment, *Torres* (2011) on school funds, *USEP* (2025) on learners' injuries, and *CSC v. Cruz* (2011) on suspension and back pay. Each post digests the leading cases on its question.

### Do the old cases still apply?

Their rulings bind unless a later law or decision changed them. *Amadora* (1988) predates the Family Code, the compensation claims of the 1970s ran under a law that now governs only pre-1975 claims, and *Oani* (2005) judged 1989 purchases under the rules then in force, such as COA Circular No. 78-84; later laws replaced them, and RA 12009 now governs.

### Were many principals cleared?

Yes. The Court upheld an exoneration in *Caberoy* (2014), held a principal's exoneration final in *Cuanan* (2008), and acquitted a principal in *Mallari* (2004). In *Corpuz* (2026) it found grave misconduct not proved, though it still suspended the principal for six months for lesser offenses. A ruling on procedure, as in *Medrano* (2008), is not a finding of guilt.

### I am facing a complaint. Where do I start?

Get advice from your Schools Division Office's legal unit or a lawyer, and find out where and when the complaint was filed: a timely objection decided *Estandarte* (2007), and a late one was lost in *Alcala* (2003). For deadlines, see [Can the Ombudsman Discipline a Principal?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ombudsman-deped-jurisdiction-principals) and [Preventive Suspension, Appeals and Back Pay](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-preventive-suspension-appeal-back-pay). For the steps and deadlines inside DepEd, see [What a School Head Does When a Complaint Arrives](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-complaint-steps-deped).

## Download the data

- [hub-decisions-by-decade.csv](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/sc-cases/hub-decisions-by-decade.csv): the 75 decisions in Figure 1, counted by decade of decision and by sector (public, private, not stated), with the number decided En Banc and the number whose court is not labeled, and a row of totals.

The CSVs and charts may be reused only with written permission: email [support@nash.com.ph](mailto:support@nash.com.ph). The decisions themselves are public records of the Supreme Court, which you can cite directly.

## Sources

**Supreme Court decisions**

- [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/oct2008/gr_177580_2008.html), G.R. No. 177580, October 17, 2008 (Second Division).
- [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Estandarte*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/apr2007/gr_168670_2007.html), G.R. No. 168670, April 13, 2007 (Third Division).
- [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Galicia*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=53205&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 167711, October 10, 2008 (En Banc).
- [*Alcala v. Villar*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2003/nov2003/gr_156063_2003.html), G.R. No. 156063, November 18, 2003 (First Division).
- [*Desierto v. Epistola*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=62108&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 161425, November 23, 2016 (Third Division, Resolution).
- [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Madriaga*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_164316_2006.html), G.R. No. 164316, September 27, 2006 (Third Division).
- [*Yangson v. Department of Education*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/jun2019/gr_200170_2019.html), G.R. No. 200170, June 3, 2019 (Third Division).
- [*Brillantes v. Guevarra*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1969/feb1969/gr_l-22586_1969.html), G.R. No. L-22586, February 27, 1969 (En Banc).
- [*Tapispisan v. Court of Appeals*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/jun2005/gr_157950_2005.html), G.R. No. 157950, June 8, 2005 (En Banc).
- [*Republic v. Pacheo*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/jan2012/gr_178021_2012.html), G.R. No. 178021, January 25, 2012 (En Banc).
- [*Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=40132&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999 (En Banc).
- [*Catacutan v. People*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=56908&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 175991, August 31, 2011 (First Division).
- [*De la Cruz v. DECS-CAR*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=47292&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 146739, January 16, 2004 (Second Division).
- [*Osorio v. Desierto*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=48012&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 156652, October 13, 2005 (Second Division).
- [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/jan2008/gr_165416_2008.html), G.R. Nos. 165416, 165584 and 165731, January 22, 2008 (First Division).
- [*Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=28208&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 56170, January 31, 1984 (En Banc).
- [*Torres v. People*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/aug2011/gr_175074_2011.html), G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011 (Third Division).
- [*Oani v. People*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/mar2005/gr_139984_2005.html), G.R. No. 139984, March 31, 2005 (Second Division).
- [*Reside v. People*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jul2020/gr_210318_2020.html), G.R. No. 210318, July 28, 2020 (First Division).
- [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Santos*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/mar2006/gr_166116_2006.html), G.R. No. 166116, March 31, 2006 (Second Division).
- [*Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon v. Dionisio*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jul2017/gr_220700_2017.html), G.R. No. 220700, July 10, 2017 (First Division).
- [*Corpuz v. Cardoza*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70576), G.R. No. 253422, June 2, 2026 (Second Division).
- [*Balbastro v. Junio*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=51624&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 154678, July 17, 2007 (Third Division).
- [*Office of the Ombudsman v. Caberoy*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/oct2014/gr_188066_2014.html), G.R. No. 188066, October 22, 2014 (Third Division).
- [*Rubenecia v. Civil Service Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=37092&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 115942, May 31, 1995 (En Banc).
- [*Mallari v. People*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=46435&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 153911, December 10, 2004 (Third Division).
- [*Orcino v. Civil Service Commission*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1990/oct1990/gr_92869_1990.html), G.R. No. 92869, October 18, 1990 (En Banc).
- [*Department of Education v. Cuanan*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_169013_2008.html), G.R. No. 169013, December 16, 2008 (En Banc).
- [*Briñas v. People*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=66895&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 254005, June 23, 2021 (First Division).
- [*People v. Bayabos*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=60250&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. Nos. 171222 and 174786, February 18, 2015 (First Division).
- [*Apolinario v. Heirs of De Los Santos*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/nov2024/gr_219686_2024.html), G.R. No. 219686, November 27, 2024 (First Division).
- [*Capili v. Spouses Cardaña*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=49984&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 157906, November 2, 2006 (Third Division).
- [*University of Southeastern Philippines v. Sarate*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=69509&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 247617, November 25, 2025 (En Banc).
- [*Mother Goose Special School System, Inc.*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=69083&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 267331, January 20, 2025 (Second Division).
- [*Child Learning Center, Inc. v. Tagario*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/nov2005/gr_150920_2005.html), G.R. No. 150920, November 25, 2005 (First Division).
- [*St. Joseph's College v. Miranda*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=55034&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 182353, June 29, 2010 (Second Division).
- [*Palisoc v. Brillantes*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1971/oct1971/gr_29025_1971.html), G.R. No. L-29025, October 4, 1971 (En Banc).
- [*St. Francis High School v. Court of Appeals*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=33794&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 82465, February 25, 1991 (Second Division).
- [*Amadora v. Court of Appeals*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/apr1988/gr_l-47745_1988.html), G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988 (En Banc).
- [*Tayag v. Court of Appeals*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=34527&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 95229, June 9, 1992 (Second Division).
- [*La Salette of Santiago, Inc. v. NLRC*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/mar1991/gr_82918_1991.html), G.R. No. 82918, March 11, 1991 (First Division).
- [*AMA Computer College, Inc. v. Garay*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=50927&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 162468, January 23, 2007 (Second Division).
- [*Wesleyan University-Philippines v. Maglaya*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=62398&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 212774, January 23, 2017 (Second Division).
- [*Geslani v. NLRC*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=37602&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 113597, February 13, 1996 (First Division).
- [*Gonzaga v. Sandiganbayan*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=34088&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 96131, September 6, 1991 (En Banc).
- [*Civil Service Commission v. Cruz*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=56880&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 187858, August 9, 2011 (En Banc).
- [*Macabuhay v. Manuel*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=25853&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-40872, Resolution, December 29, 1980 (En Banc).
- [*Macabuhay v. Manuel*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=23484&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-38568, Resolution, July 31, 1974 (Second Division).
- [*Alzate v. Aldana*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=16238&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-14407, February 29, 1960 (division not stated).
- [*Alzate v. Aldana*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=18434&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-18085, May 31, 1963 (division not stated).
- [*Gravador v. Mamigo*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=20185&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-24989, July 21, 1967 (division not stated).
- [*Gomez v. Workmen's Compensation Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=24818&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-43617, February 28, 1977 (First Division).
- [*Soliven v. Workmen's Compensation Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=24527&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-44763, June 30, 1977 (First Division), decided with G.R. No. L-45381; [resolution denying reconsideration](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=24534&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), October 27, 1977.
- [*Magat v. Workmen's Compensation Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=24852&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-43705, December 21, 1977 (First Division).
- [*Ligason v. Workmen's Compensation Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=25200&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-43691, September 30, 1978 (First Division).
- [*Alabat v. Workmen's Compensation Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=25268&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-43942, September 30, 1978 (First Division).
- [*Vda. de Torbela v. Employees' Compensation Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=26183&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-42627, February 21, 1980 (First Division).
- [*Cabalquinto v. Republic*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=26613&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-45141, January 27, 1981 (First Division).
- [*Calvero v. Employees' Compensation Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=27396&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 52059, September 30, 1982 (First Division).
- [*Abaya v. Employees Compensation Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=31568&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 64255, August 16, 1989 (First Division).
- [*Roldan v. Republic*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=32900&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. L-45618, February 15, 1990 (First Division).
- [*Librea v. Employees' Compensation Commission*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=33734&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 58879, November 14, 1991 (Third Division).
- [*GSIS v. Villamayor*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=50120&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 154386, August 22, 2006 (First Division).
- [*COMELEC v. Noynay*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=39640&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 132365, July 9, 1998 (En Banc).
- [*Public Schools District Supervisors Association v. De Jesus*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=49724&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 157286, June 16, 2006 (En Banc).

**Laws and rules**

- [Republic Act No. 4670](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1966/ra_4670_1966.html), Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, approved June 18, 1966, Secs. 6 and 9.
- [Republic Act No. 6770](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1989/ra_6770_1989.html), The Ombudsman Act of 1989, Sec. 24.
- [Republic Act No. 3019](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1960/ra_3019_1960.html), Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Sec. 13.
- [Civil Code of the Philippines](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html), Art. 2180.
- [Family Code of the Philippines](https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_209_1987.html), Arts. 218 and 219, effective August 3, 1988.
- [Labor Code of the Philippines](https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1974/pd_442_1974.html), Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, Arts. 208, 293 and 296 as originally numbered (Book IV, Title II, employees' compensation, and the transitory provisions).
- [Republic Act No. 12009](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2024/ra_12009_2024.html), New Government Procurement Act, approved July 20, 2024, Secs. 113 and 115.
- COA Circular No. 78-84, August 1, 1978, as quoted in *Oani*.
- [Republic Act No. 10951](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2017/ra_10951_2017.html), Sec. 40, amending Revised Penal Code Art. 217.
- [Republic Act No. 11053](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/85055), Anti-Hazing Act of 2018, Secs. 2 and 14.
- [Republic Act No. 7877](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1995/ra_7877_1995.html), Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, approved February 14, 1995.
- [Republic Act No. 11313](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/90094), Safe Spaces Act, approved April 17, 2019.
- [Republic Act No. 10627](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/58226), Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, approved September 12, 2013.
- [DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2012/05/14/do-40-s-2012-deped-child-protection-policy/), DepEd Child Protection Policy, and [DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/03/24/march-24-2026-do-006-s-2026-guidelines-on-ensuring-a-safe-and-motivating-learning-environment-esmle/), which supplements it and "does not amend or repeal" it.
- [2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service](https://csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/paio/2025_ORAOHRA_AND_RACCS/2025_RACCS_19_September.pdf), CSC Resolution No. 2500357, April 30, 2025, effective August 4, 2025, Secs. 1, 37, 116, 156 and 158.
- [2025 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions](https://csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/irmo/mc/2025/MC%20No.%2008%20s.%202025.pdf), CSC MC No. 08, s. 2025, effective August 3, 2025, Secs. 13(a), 145 and 147.
- Revised Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, Administrative Order No. 1, s. 2026, signed January 19, 2026, Rule VIII, Sec. 8 and Rule X, Sec. 11.
- [DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2006/12/12/do-49-s-2006-revised-rules-of-procedure-of-the-department-of-education-in-administrative-cases-amended-by/), Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of Education in Administrative Cases, Secs. 1, 2 and 18.
- [DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2004](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2004/06/03/do-35-s-2004-revision-of-the-grievance-machineries-of-the-department-of-education/), Revision of the Grievance Machinery of the Department of Education.
- [DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2022](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2022/03/18/march-18-2022-do-013-s-2022-omnibus-guidelines-on-the-regulation-of-operations-of-the-parent-teacher-associations/), Omnibus Guidelines on the Regulation of Operations of the Parent-Teacher Associations.
- [DepEd Memorandum No. 041, s. 2024](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2024/08/02/august-2-2024-dm-041-s-2024-reiteration-of-the-no-collection-policy-in-schools/), Reiteration of the "No Collection Policy" in Schools.
- [DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2023](https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/DO_s2023_007.pdf), item 4 (repealing clause), and [DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2007](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2007/07/04/do-42-s-2007-the-revised-guidelines-on-selection-promotion-and-designation-of-school-heads/).
- [DepEd Memorandum No. 057, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/09/22/september-21-2026-dm-057-s-2026-creation-of-a-national-technical-working-group-ntwg-for-the-development-of-roadmap-for-the-magna-carta-for-public-school-teachers-republic-act-no-4670/), September 21, 2026.

*This guide explains Supreme Court decisions for study and professional awareness. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult a lawyer or your Schools Division Office's legal unit.*

## The Supreme Court cases series

- Supreme Court Cases on School Heads: A Guide for Principals (this post)
- [Can the Ombudsman Discipline a Principal? RA 4670 Cases](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ombudsman-deped-jurisdiction-principals)
- [Can a Principal Be Reassigned to Another School?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-reassignment-transfer-oic-tenure)
- [Promotion Protests and Nepotism: Cases on Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-promotion-protest-nepotism-cases)
- [Unauthorized School Fees: What Happens to the Principal?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/unauthorized-school-fees-principal-cases)
- [Can a Principal Be Jailed Over School Funds?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-malversation-graft-school-funds)
- [Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct: Cases on Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-dishonesty-grave-misconduct-cases)
- [Oppression Cases: How Principals Must Treat Teachers](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-oppression-teachers-cases)
- [Harassment, Child Abuse and Hazing: Cases on School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-harassment-child-abuse-hazing-cases)
- [Is a Principal Liable When a Pupil Is Injured?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-liability-pupil-injury)
- [Can a Private School Remove Its Principal?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/private-school-principal-dismissal-cases)
- [Preventive Suspension, Appeals and Back Pay for Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-preventive-suspension-appeal-back-pay)

*Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: Supreme Court decisions cited above; the 2025 RACCS and 2025 ORAOHRA; Ombudsman A.O. No. 1, s. 2026; RA 4670, RA 12009, RA 10951 and RA 11053; the Labor Code; DepEd Orders No. 49, s. 2006 and No. 35, s. 2004. Charts may be reused only with written permission from support@nash.com.ph.*

---

© 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. All rights reserved. You may quote up to 100 words from this article with the author's name, its title and a link. In research, cite it as: Llego, M. A. (2026, October 31). *Supreme Court Cases on School Heads: A Guide for Principals*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/supreme-court-cases-school-heads. Any other reuse of the article, its charts or its data needs written permission: email support@nash.com.ph. Terms of Service: https://nash.com.ph/terms#website-content-and-data