"x x x.
PREGNANCIES borne out of wedlock with an unmarried man do not constitute ground for terminating employment, even where the employer is a private Catholic educational institution. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove and/or Quiambao.
 Amicus Curiae -- Jo Blanca P.B. Labay: "The increasing need for lawyers without borders" Amicus Curiae -- Genie Celini D. Nuevo:"Arbitration and the ADR Act of 2004: An alternative method of settling disputes" Amicus Curiae -- Kurt T. Yeung: "Branding a name" Amicus Curiae -- Candice Christine O. Tongco:"Grandfather rule still useful in nationality test" Amicus Curiae -- Catherine Anne L. Diño: "PPPs crucial to our being globally competitive" |
Contesting the validity of her services’ termination, the employee filed a complaint against the school for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). She argued that the school had no just cause to dismiss her since her pregnancy out of wedlock was a purely private affair and not in any way connected with her duties. She also pointed out that she eventually married the father of her child, even prior to her dismissal.
The Labor Arbiter, NLRC and the Court of Appeals sustained the school’s position that the employee’s act was a proper ground for termination under the MPRS. The Court of Appeals further ruled that pregnancy out of wedlock is scandalous per se given the work environment and social milieu. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed these findings.
The Supreme Court ruled that the employee’s pregnancy out of wedlock was neither disgraceful nor immoral because the employee and the father of her child were both unmarried and had no impediment to marry each other. The Supreme Court explained that, in deciding if an act was disgraceful and/or immoral, the circumstances of each case must be considered and evaluated in light of the prevailing norms of conduct. These norms, in turn, are determined by public and secular morality -- not religious morality.
Thus, in contemplation of the law, disgraceful or immoral conduct specifically refers to acts which are “detrimental or dangerous to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society,” and not to those conducts prohibited by the beliefs of one religion. The Supreme Court noted that there is no law which prohibits consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons, or otherwise penalizes an unwed mother for her sexual conduct. Hence, even though it is not in accord with the doctrines of the Catholic Church, the employee’s act was deemed not disgraceful or immoral within the contemplation of the law.
The situation would be different had either the employee or the father of her child was married. That would mean that they had an extramarital affair, which the Supreme Court stated to be disgraceful and immoral under the contemplation of the MPRS for offending the sanctity of marriage, which is a basic unit of society.
The Supreme Court further found that the school failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove its allegation that the employee’s indiscretion caused grave scandal to the school and its students, thus warranting her dismissal. The Supreme Court, thus, concluded that it was an abuse of management prerogative to terminate the employee for her premarital sexual relations.
Danielle Sigfreid R. Corpuz is an associate of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department of the Angara Abello Concepcion Regala & Cruz Law Offices.
drcorpuz@accralaw.com
x xx."
