Photo from Unsplash | Mikhail Pavstyuk
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
The case of Cheryll Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove
(G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015)
AT A GLANCE
- To constitute immorality, the circumstances of each particular case must be holistically considered and evaluated in light of the prevailing norms of conduct and applicable laws. Otherwise stated, 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.
Is immoral conduct a just cause for termination of employment?
In the case of Cheryll Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove (G.R. No. 187226, January 28, 2015), the Supreme Court determined the validity of Cheryll Leus’ (the Petitioner) termination, which hinges on the determination of whether pregnancy out of wedlock by an employee of a catholic educational institution is a cause for the termination of her employment.
Cheryll Leus was hired as an assistant to the Director of the Lay Apostolate and Community Outreach Directorate of St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove (SSCW), a Catholic educational institution, as a non-teaching personnel, engaged in pre-marital sexual relations, got pregnant out of wedlock, married the father of her child, and was dismissed by SSCW, in that order. The question that has to be resolved is whether the petitioner’s conduct constitutes a ground for her dismissal.
In 2003, the petitioner and her boyfriend conceived a child out of wedlock. When SSCW learned of the petitioner’s pregnancy, she was advised to file her resignation letter, which she refused telling the School Directress she would not resign from her employment just because she got pregnant without the benefit of marriage.
She further 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.
Nonetheless, she was informed that her employment with SSCW has been terminated on the ground of serious misconduct. SSCW stressed that pre-marital sexual relations between two consenting adults with no impediment to marry, even if they subsequently married, amounts to immoral conduct. The school further pointed out that it finds unacceptable the scandal brought about by the petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock as it ran counter to the moral principles that SSCW stands for and teaches its students.
Thus, the petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
Now the issue before the Supreme Court is this:
Does pregnancy out of wedlock amount to serious misconduct to constitute a just cause for termination of employment?
The Supreme Court ruled that the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct alleged to be disgraceful or immoral must be assessed against the prevailing norms of conduct.
Further, the Supreme Court held:
“To constitute immorality, the circumstances of each particular case must be holistically considered and evaluated in light of the prevailing norms of conduct and applicable laws. Otherwise stated, 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.
Thus, the determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral involves a two-step process: first, a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and second, an assessment of the said circumstances vis-à-vis the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and respectable.
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.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Moreover, “the petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock is not a disgraceful or immoral conduct since she and the father of her child have no impediment to marry each other,” the Supreme Court ruled. As such:
“The Court does not find any circumstance in this case which would lead the Court to conclude that the petitioner committed a disgraceful or immoral conduct. It bears stressing that the petitioner and her boyfriend, at the time they conceived a child, had no legal impediment to marry. Indeed, even prior to her dismissal, the petitioner married her boyfriend, the father of her child. As the Court held in Radam, there is no law which penalizes an unmarried mother by reason of her sexual conduct or proscribes the consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons; that neither does such situation contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution.
Admittedly, the petitioner is employed in an educational institution where the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church, including that on pre-marital sexual relations, is strictly upheld and taught to the students. That her 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, the petitioner’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.
To stress, 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.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Here, SSCW failed to provide substantial evidence to prove that the petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock caused grave scandal to the school and its students. Since it is a settled rule that in termination cases, the burden of proving that the dismissal of employees was for a valid and authorized cause rests on the employer, and it is incumbent upon the employer to show by substantial evidence that the termination of the employment of the employees was validly made and failure to discharge that duty would mean that the dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.
For failing to adduce substantial evidence to prove the school management’s alleged cause for termination of the petitioner’s dismissal, petitioner is considered to be illegally dismissed. Put simply by the Supreme Court, “Security of tenure is a right which may not be denied on mere speculation of any unclear and nebulous basis.”
“In sum, the Court finds that the petitioner was illegally dismissed as there was no just cause for the termination of her employment. SSCW failed to adduce substantial evidence to establish that the petitioner’s conduct, i.e., engaging in pre-marital sexual relations and conceiving a child out of wedlock, assessed in light of the prevailing norms of conduct, is considered disgraceful or immoral.”
Related article: SC decides: Termination of an employee due to gross immorality
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.