Firing an employee for having a child out of wedlock is 'despotic, arbitrary' – SC | News | GMA News Online

See - Firing an employee for having a child out of wedlock is 'despotic, arbitrary' – SC | News | GMA News Online





"x x x.

An employee cannot be fired from work simply because of pre-marital sexual relations or pregnancy out of wedlock, the Supreme Court has ruled.

 

The high tribunal has reversed a 2009 Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the dismissal of Cheryll Santos Leus by the St. Scholastica's College, Westgrove in Cavite for "disgraceful or immoral conduct."

Branding the dismissal as "despotic and arbitrary," the SC said evidence of the case failed to prove Leus's conduct adversely affected the school's integrity in teaching its moral doctrines.

 

Prior to her dismissal as a non-teaching personnel, Leus married the father of her child. 

 

The SC said pre-marital relations between two consenting adults 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 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.

 

“[T]here is no law which penalizes an unmarried mother by reason of her sexual conduct or proscribes consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons.... Such conduct is not denounced by public and secular morality," ruled the SC.

 

"It may be an unusual arrangement, but it certainly is not disgraceful or immoral within the contemplation of the law,” it added.

The high tribunal said Leus's conduct could not be considered by law as disgraceful or immoral.

 

“SSCW, as employer, undeniably has the right to discipline its employees and, if need be, dismiss them if there is a valid cause to do so. However, as already explained, there is no cause to dismiss the petitioner," the Court said.

 

The SC said that the SSCW itself, at the time of the controversy, admitted not having a policy or rule against an employee who engages in pre-marital sexual relations and conceives a child as a result thereof. 

 

The Court emphasized that the "morality" contemplated by law pertains to public and secular morality, and not religious morality.

 

"[In] order for a conduct to be considered as disgraceful or immoral, it must be 'detrimental (or dangerous) to those conditions which depend [on] the existence and progress of human society' and not because the conduct is proscribed by the beliefs of one religion or the other," the SC said.

 

The SC said even if Leus's indiscretion was against Catholic Church teachings, prevailing norms of conduct do not consider it as disgraceful or immoral. 

 

The Court held that the right of an employee to security of tenure is constitutionally protected, and a regular employee “may not be dismissed unless for cause under the Labor Code and other laws, in this case, the 1992 MRPS.” — NB/ELR, GMA News."