Zaida R. Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc./Veronica Menguito
G.R. No. 202621 • June 22, 2016
Facts
1. Respondent St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc. (“St. Vincent”) is a non-stock, non-profit organization engaged in social services for children and the elderly, supported by the Catholic Foundation for Children and Aging (CFCA).
2. Petitioner Zaida R. Inocente was employed by St. Vincent in 2000 and subsequently promoted to Program Officer.
3. While employed, Zaida entered into a consensual romantic relationship with a colleague, Marlon Inocente. Marlon later resigned in July 2008.
4. In September 2006, St. Vincent adopted CFCA’s Non-Fraternization Policy, which “strongly discourage[d]” consensual romantic or sexual relationships among employees and volunteers.
5. The relationship was kept private and continued even after Marlon left employment.
6. In early 2009, Zaida suffered a miscarriage and then an ectopic pregnancy; disclosure of her medical condition to management led to discovery of her relationship with Marlon.
7. Respondent issued a show-cause letter and subsequently terminated Zaida’s employment on May 30, 2009 for immorality, gross misconduct, and violation of St. Vincent’s Code of Conduct.
8. Zaida filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter (LA), alleging lack of just cause and discrimination.
LA dismissed Zaida’s complaint, upholding the dismissal for just cause.
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the LA, concluding Zaida’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
Court of Appeals (CA) denied certiorari, agreeing the dismissal was valid and not discriminatory.
Petition for review on certiorari appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
1. Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in ruling that no just cause existed to invalidate Zaida’s dismissal.
2. Whether Zaida’s consensual intimate relationship and failure to disclose it constituted immorality, serious misconduct, or willful breach of trust justifying dismissal.
3. Whether the dismissal violated applicable anti-discrimination provisions (e.g., Article 137(2) of the Labor Code, Magna Carta of Women, CEDAW).
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the CA and NLRC, holding that Zaida was illegally dismissed.
Held:
1. Burden of proof. In dismissal cases, the employer must prove just or authorized causes and observance of due process.
2. Non-Fraternization Policy. The CFCA policy merely discouraged romantic or sexual relationships and did not prohibit them. Thus, Zaida did not violate any binding employer rule or regulation.
3. Immorality not established. The intimate relationship between two consenting adults, neither under legal impediment to marry, conducted privately, does not constitute immoral conduct under public and secular standards of morality.
4. No serious misconduct or loss of trust and confidence. There was no evidence that her relationship affected her job performance or work duties as Program Officer.
5. Pregnancy or marital status. Termination was not shown to be independent of pregnancy or marital status; punitive action predicated on such considerations may constitute discrimination.
Legal Principles
Employer’s management prerogative does not extend to regulating the off-duty intimate relationships of employees when such relationships do not materially affect job performance and are not proscribed by law or enforceable rules.
Morality standards for employment discipline are public and secular, not religious, and must reflect the conduct “generally accepted by society as moral and respectable”.
Mere private consensual sexual relations, even resulting in pregnancy or miscarriage out of wedlock, do not ipso facto constitute immoral conduct justifying dismissal.
Disposition
The Supreme Court granted the petition, setting aside the CA and NLRC decisions. The dismissal was declared illegal; petitioner entitled to remedies under the Labor Code (e.g., reinstatement or separation pay, backwages).
Related:
https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/opinion/2026/01/30/2504519/firing-employees-due-pregnancy-or-marriage-illegal
(Assisted by ChatGPT, February 1, 2026)