Cheryll S. Leus v. St.

Scholasticas College Westgrove

Jan 28, 2015

Dismissing an Employee on the Ground of Pregnancy Out of Wedlock

Valid or Not?

(Pregnant teacher in catholic school - not immoral or disgraceful

conduct; both free and consenting adults from purely public and
secular view of morality).
a.) totality of circumstances surrounding the conduct; and
b.) Assessment of the circumstances with the prevailing norms of
conduct i.e. what society considers moral and respectable.

FACTS:

Cheryll was hired by St. Scholasticas College Westgrove (SSCW) as an

Assistant to SSCWs Director of the Lay Apostolate and Community Outreach
Directorate on May 2001. Sometime in 2003, the petitioner and her boyfriend
conceived a child out of wedlock. When SSCW learned of the petitioners
pregnancy, Sr. Edna Quiambao (Sr. Quiambao), SSCWs Directress, advised
her to file a resignation letter effective June 1, 2003. In response, the
petitioner informed Sr. Quiambao that she would not resign from her
employment just because she got pregnant without the benefit of marriage.

On May 28, 2003, Sr. Quiambao formally directed the petitioner 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 replied stating that her pregnancy outside of wedlock does not
amount to serious misconduct. She thereafter requested a copy of
SSCWs policy so that she can better respond to the charge against her.
SSCW did not a have these guidelines as the guidelines handbook was
currently pending of its promulgation. It instead stated that they follow the
1992 Manual of Regulations for Private School (1992 MRPS), specifically,
Sec.94, which cites disgraceful or immoral conduct" as a ground for
dismissal, in addition to the just causes for termination of employment
under Art.282, Labor Code.

The Labor Arbiter in Quezon City decided in favor of SSCW, stating that
Cheryll being pregnant out of wedlock is considered disgraceful and
immoral conduct taking into account that she was employed in a Catholic
institution which expect its employees to live up to the Catholic values it
teaches to the students. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor
Arbiter.

ISSUE: WON Cherylls pregnancy out of wedlock constitutes a valid ground

to terminate her employment.

RULING:

The Supreme Court held that Cheryll was illegally dismissed by her
employer. Her pregnancy out of wedlock does not constitute a valid
ground to terminate her employment.

Disgraceful conduct is viewed in two ways, the public and secular view and
religious view. Our laws concern the first view. Disgraceful conduct per se
will not amount to violation of the law the conduct must affect or poses a
danger to the conditions of society, for example, the sanctity of marriage,
right to privacy and the like.

The Court cited Estrada vs. Escritur in the said case, stating the following
relevant explanation;

(1) if the father of the child is himself unmarried, the woman is not
ordinarily administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct. It may
be a not-so-ideal situation and may cause complications for both mother and
child but it does not give cause for administrative sanction. There is no law
which penalizes an unmarried mother under those circumstances by reason
of her sexual conduct or proscribes the consensual sexual activity between
two unmarried persons. Neither does the situation contravene any
fundamental state policy as expressed in the Constitution, a document that
accommodates various belief systems irrespective of dogmatic origins.

(2) if the father of the child born out of wedlock is himself married to a
woman other than the mother, then there is a cause for administrative
sanction against either the father or the mother. In such a case, the
disgraceful and immoral conduct consists of having extramarital relations
with a married person. The sanctity of marriage is constitutionally
recognized and likewise affirmed by our statutes as a special contract of
permanent union. Accordingly, judicial employees have been sanctioned for
their dalliances with married persons or for their own betrayals of the marital
vow of fidelity. In this case, it was not disputed that, like respondent, the
father of her child was unmarried. Therefore, respondent cannot be held
liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct simply because she gave birth to
the child Christian Jeon out of wedlock.
Furthermore, there was no substantial evidence to prove that
Cherylls pregnancy out of wedlock caused grave scandal to SSCW
and its students. Mere allegation of such will not render a judgment in
favor of the one making the allegation. It is the burden of the employer to
prove by substantial evidence that the termination of the employment of the
employee was made and failure to discharge that duty would mean that the
dismissal is not justified and therefore illegal.

The Court ordered SSCW to reinstate Cheryll. But because this is not
possible anymore due to constrained relations with SSCW, the Court
ordered the employer to pay Cheryll separation pay, full backwages and
attorneys fees.