Dismissing an Employee on the Ground of Pregnancy Out of Wedlock – Valid or Not?

May an employer dismiss an employee on the ground that the latter got pregnant out of wedlock? What if the employer is a strict Catholic school that imposes strict religious regulations, will this alone validate the dismissal made to the erring employee?

This situation has been raised many times before the Supreme Court, including this 2015 case concerning a well known Catholic school for girls.

In this case entitled Cheryll Leus vs St. Scholastica's College Westgrove, Cheryll Santos Leus was hired by St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove (SSCW) as an Assistant to SSCW’s 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 petitioner’s pregnancy, Sr. Edna Quiambao (Sr. Quiambao), SSCW’s 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 SSCW’s 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.

The question now raised before the Supreme Court is this – is Cheryll’s pregnancy out of wedlock constitutes a valid ground to terminate her employment?

The Ruling of the Supreme Court.

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.

Image from www.philstar.com

Furthermore,  there was no substantial evidence to prove that Cheryll’s 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 attorney’s fees.

The Supreme Court decided: 

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 24, 2008 and Resolution dated March 2, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100188 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The respondent, St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, is hereby declared guilty of illegal dismissal and is hereby ORDERED to pay the petitioner, Cheryll Santos Leus, the following: 

(a) separation pay in lieu of actual reinstatement equivalent to one (1) month pay for every year of service, with a fraction of at least six (6) months considered as one (1) whole year from the time of her dismissal up to the finality of this Decision; 

(b) full backwages from the time of her illegal dismissal up to the finality of this Decision; and 

(c) attorney’s fees equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total monetary award. The monetary awards herein granted shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of the finality of this Decision until fully paid. The case is REMANDED to the Labor Arbiter for the computation of petitioner’s monetary awards.

Did you encounter a similar situation in the above case with your employer? Let us know through the comments section below. We would like to hear from you.

Read the Original Case:

CHERYLL SANTOS LEUS vs.ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE WESTGROVE and/or SR. EDNA QUIAMBAO, OSB, G.R. No. 187226 January 28, 2015.