Jane, single, a teacher who works at Union School International, found out that she was pregnant with a man who intends to marry another woman. She confided the matter to the school head, Jennifer. The school’s Faculty and Staff Handbook, included the offense on gross immorality. Because she did not report for work without informing the school, she was suspended for four days, plus one day for a previous incident of absence without leave. During the hearing conducted by the Grievance Committee to discuss her situation, she was advised that she only has two choices, to resign or be terminated because of her violation of the school’s Faculty and Staff Handbook, particularly on the provision on gross immorality. She was also advised that her prospect for a new job will be dimmer is she is dismissed, compared to resigning. She opted for resignation, although the minutes of the meeting indicated that she may accept dismissal if the school decides to do so.
On the same day, Jane filed a case for illegal dismissal at the NLRC. Prior to the mediation at the illegal dismissal case, she received a memorandum requiring her to explain the violations discussed at the Grievance Committee meeting. For failure to give the required explanation, management terminated her services.
The Labor Arbiter found in favor of Jane, ruling that she was constructively dismissed when she was coerced into admitting her pregnancy with a man who subsequently married another. For the LA, the acts of the school consituted persecution, discrimination, insensitivity and disdain when Dagdag was coerced into resigning from her job after having admitted to Mandapat that she was pregnant out of wedlock with no intentions of getting married to the father of her child as he had already married another woman.
The NLRC decided otherwise. But the CA reinstated the Labor Arbiter’s decision hence the school elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
The issue for consideration was whether or not Jane, the employee was constructively dismissed for getting pregnant without the benefit of marriage with another man who subsequently married another. Does the pregnancy out of wedlock with the parties having no impediment to marry constituted gross immorality punishable with dismissal?
The Ruling:
The petition is without merit.
“[Constructive dismissal [is] a cessation of work because continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee.””The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his employment/position under the circumstances.”
As aptly observed by the CA, Mandapat’s act of suggesting that Dagdag should simply tender her resignation, as the school may impose harsher penalties, left Dagdag with no choice but to discontinue working for Union School. Also, the CA noted that although there was a conduct of grievance meeting, its outcome was already predetermined as petitioners were already resolute in their decision to terminate Dagdag’s employment.
This is evident by the fact that Dagdag was left with two choices—resignation or dismissal and threatening her with possible revocation of her teaching license.
Indeed, Dagdag agreed to resign because her actuation was perceived by petitioners as a ground for the revocation of her license as a teacher. Such license serves as a permit for Dagdag to secure an employment and find a means of livelihood.
Be that as it may, it appears that the grievance committee finally voted on Dagdag’s dismissal, per minutes of the meeting.Said committee made a conclusion that Dagdag committed gross immorality in violation of the school rules and the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers.
To determine whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral, a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and an assessment of the said circumstances vis-a-vis the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and respectable, are necessary.
In the case of Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc. it is held that:
Jurisprudence has already set the standard of morality with which an act should be gauged — it is public and secular, not religious. Whether a conduct is considered disgraceful or immoral should be made in accordance with the prevailing norms of conduct, which, as stated in Leus, refer to those conducts which are proscribed because they are detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society. The fact that a particular act does not conform to the traditional moral views of a certain sectarian institution is not sufficient reason to qualify such act as immoral unless it, likewise, does not conform to public and secular standards. More importantly, there must be substantial evidence to establish that premarital sexual relations and pregnancy out of wedlock is considered disgraceful or immoral.(Citations and emphasis in the original omitted)
The totality of evidence in this case does not justify the dismissal of Dagdag from her employment considering that there was no legal impediment to marry between Dagdag and the father of her child at the time of the conception. To reiterate the ruling of this Court in Leus and Capin-Cadiz, pregnancy of a school teacher out of wedlock is not a just cause for termination of an employment absent any showing that the pre-marital sexual relations and, consequently, pregnancy out of wedlock, are indeed considered disgraceful or immoral.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated November 10, 2016 and the Resolution dated May 17, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 133482 are AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
TIJAM, J.:
Bersamin[*] (Acting Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Gesmundo,[**] JJ., concur.
Jardeleza, J., see concurring opinion.
Citations omitted.
G.R. No. 234186, November 21, 2018, UNION SCHOOL INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTED BY PASTOR ABRAHAM CHO [SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT], JAIME NABUA [BOARD PRESIDENT], AND JENNIFER MANDAPAT [SCHOOL HEAD], PETITIONERS, V. CHARLEY JANE DAGDAG, RESPONDENT.
SEE ALSO:
1 thought on “Pregnancy of a school teacher out of wedlock is not a just cause for termination of an employment absent any showing that the pre-marital sexual relations and, consequently, pregnancy out of wedlock, are indeed considered disgraceful or immoral.”