Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Substantial evidence needed to prove disgraceful and immoral conduct
What is right to one person may be wrong to another and vice-versa. The difference in the opinion as to what is right and what is wrong can be attributed to the use of different standards of morality. In an illegal dismissal case which is grounded on serious misconduct, it may not be too difficult to determine whether an act constitutes a serious misconduct. However, the issue of whether a female employee who got pregnant out of wedlock appears to be problematic since people see it through different moral lenses.
In the case of Cheryll Santos Leus vs. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, the court has categorically prescribed what standard of morality to apply in dealing with pregnancies out of wedlock.
Cheryll was hired as a non-teaching employee of a Catholic educational institution. Sometime in 2003, Cheryll and her boyfriend conceived a child out of wedlock. When the School Directress learned about it, she advised her to file a resignation letter effective June 1, 2003. Cheryll refused to resign; hence, on May 8, 2003, the School Directress directed Cheryll to explain in writing why she should not be dismissed for engaging in pre-marital sexual relations and getting pregnant as a result thereof, which amounts to serious misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an employee of a Catholic school. Cheryll explained that her pregnancy out of wedlock does not amount to serious misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an employee. She averred that she is unaware of any school policy stating that being pregnant out of wedlock is considered as a serious misconduct and, thus, a ground for dismissal. She requested a copy of the school’s policy and guidelines so that she may better respond to the charge against her. The School Directress cited the Manual of Regulations for private schools which cites “disgraceful or immoral conduct” as a ground for dismissal in addition to the just causes for termination of employment provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
In her letter to the School Directress, Cheryll through her counsel stressed the following:
To us, pre-marital sex between two consenting adults without legal impediment to marry each other who later on married each other does not fall within the contemplation of “disgraceful or immoral conduct” and “serious misconduct” of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and the Labor Code of the Philippines.
Your argument that what happened to our client would set a bad example to the students and other employees of your school is speculative and is more imaginary than real. To dismiss her on that sole ground constitutes grave abuse of management prerogatives.
In response, the School Directress maintained that pre-marital sexual relations, even if between two consenting adults without legal impediment to marry, is considered a disgraceful and immoral conduct or a serious misconduct, which are grounds for the termination of employment under the 1992 MRPS and the Labor Code.
On the basis of her pregnancy out of wedlock, the school terminated Cheryll.
Cheryll filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter who rendered a decision declaring that Cheryll’s pregnancy is a disgraceful and immoral conduct which is a just cause of termination. On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission, the appellate labor tribunal sustained the findings of the Labor Arbiter and ruled that Cheryll was not illegally dismissed.
Left with no other choice after exhausting all her remedies in the lower tribunals, Cheryll appealed her case to the Supreme Court on the issue of whether or not her pregnancy constitutes a disgraceful and immoral conduct.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cheryll.
The Court finds no substantial evidence to support the aforementioned conclusion arrived at by the labor tribunals. The fact of the petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock, without more, is not enough to characterize the petitioner’s conduct as disgraceful or immoral. There must be substantial evidence to establish that pre-marital sexual relations and, consequently, pregnancy out of wedlock, are indeed considered disgraceful or immoral.
Using the Totality of Circumstances Test, the Court said that to constitute immorality, it is not the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct per se that determines whether the same is disgraceful or immoral, but the conduct that is generally accepted by society as respectable or moral. If the conduct does not conform to what society generally views as respectable or moral, then the conduct is considered as disgraceful or immoral. Tersely put, substantial evidence must be presented, which would establish that a particular conduct, viewed in light of the prevailing norms of conduct, is considered disgraceful or immoral.
The fact that the petitioner was employed by a Catholic educational institution per se does not absolutely determine whether her pregnancy out of wedlock is disgraceful or immoral. There is still a necessity to determine whether the petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock is considered disgraceful or immoral in accordance with the prevailing norms of conduct.
What standard of morality is to be applied in determining a disgraceful or immoral conduct, the public and secular morality or the religious morality?
The Court said that it should be the public and secular morality, and not the religious morality. It refers to those conducts which are proscribed because they are detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society.
In resolving the case of Cheryll, the Court takes cognizance of the fact that she is employed in a Catholic educational institution where the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church, including that on pre-marital sexual relations, are strictly upheld and taught to the students. That Cheryll’s indiscretion, which resulted in her pregnancy out of wedlock, is anathema to the doctrines of the Catholic Church. However, viewed against the prevailing norms of conduct, Cheryll’s conduct cannot be considered as disgraceful or immoral; such conduct is not denounced by public and secular morality. It may be an unusual arrangement, but it certainly is not disgraceful or immoral within the contemplation of the law.
The Court emphasized that pre-marital sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no impediment to marry each other, and, consequently, conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular view of morality, does not amount to a disgraceful or immoral conduct under Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS. (Cheryll Santos Leus vs. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, et. al., G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015)