Professional Documents
Culture Documents
RULING: The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the CA. However, it did uphold
the validity of the 1992 MRPS, specifically Section 94 as having been validly issued by
the Secretary of Education pursuant to BP 232.
The Court then focused on the validity of the dismissal 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. But
the Court resolved this from a strictly neutral and secular point of view the relationship
between SSCW as employer and the petitioner as an employee, the causes provided for
by law in the termination of such relationship, and the evidence on record.
Her dismissal was based on pre-marital sexual relations and, consequently, pregnancy
out of wedlock. This was to be assessed as to whether the same constitutes a valid
ground for dismissal pursuant to Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS which provides that:
Sec. 94. Causes of Terminating Employment In addition to the just causes enumerated
in the Labor Code, the employment of school personnel, including faculty, may be
terminated for any of the following causes:
xxxx
e. Disgraceful or immoral conduct;
x x x x
The Court found no substantial evidence to support the previous conclusion
arrived at by the labor tribunals that she engaged in disgraceful and immoral
conduct. Without more, pregnancy out of wedlock is not enough to characterize the
petitioners conduct as disgraceful or immoral. There must be substantial evidence to
establish that pre-marital sexual relations and, consequently, pregnancy out of wedlock,
are indeed considered disgraceful or immoral.
Determining disgraceful and
immoral conduct
The Court held that 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-vis the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and
respectable. It further stated that her employment by a Catholic school 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 petitioners pregnancy out of
wedlock is considered disgraceful or immoral in accordance with the prevailing norms of
conduct.
Interestingly, the Court made a distinction between public and secular morality versus
religious morality. The distinction is important because the jurisdiction of the Court
extends only to public and secular morality. As cited by the Court:
The morality referred to in the law is public and necessarily secular, not
religious x x x. Religious teachings as expressed in public debate may influence the civil
public order but public moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds articulable in
secular terms. Otherwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs in
formulating public policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals would
Contrary to the labor tribunals declarations, the Court also found that the school failed
to adduce substantial evidence to prove that the petitioner conduct caused grave
scandal to the school and its students. Since she was only a non-teaching personnel;
her interaction with the students is minimal.
In termination cases, the burden of proving that the dismissal of the employees was for
a valid and authorized cause rests on the employer. However, there was no valid
ground for dismissal as her conduct is not considered by law as disgraceful or immoral.
As admitted, the school at the time did not have any policy or rule against an employee
who engages in pre-marital sexual relations and conceives a child as a result
thereof. With no basis in law or in its policy and rules, the dismissal was despotic and
arbitrary and, thus, not a valid exercise of management prerogative. The Court
awarded her separation pay, in lieu of actual reinstatement, full backwages and
attorneys fees, but not to moral and exemplary damages.
The moral of the story appears to be that even for a Catholic school, secular and not
religious standards will prevail. This highlights another separation, not of Church and
State, but between Church and Court, at least when it comes to norms of conduct.
2. SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. REBESENCIO
Being a flight attendant in an international airline company has its perks. Just imagine, your work office is
high up in the air at 41,000 feet above ground. But just like any work place, discrimination is still present
in this occupation. In a previous post, we tackled a labor issue concerning the dismissal of an employee by
reason of pregnancy. This 2015 case tackles on discrimination of women in the airline industry.
(H) Due to the essential nature of the Air Hostess functions to be physically fit on board to provide various
services required in normal or emergency cases on both domestic/international flights beside her role in
maintaining continuous safety and security of passengers, and since she will not be able to maintain the
required medical fitness while at work in case of pregnancy, accordingly, if the Air Hostess becomes
pregnant at any time during the term of this contract, this shall render her employment
contract as void and she will be terminated due to lack of medical fitness.(Emphasis
supplied)
On November 8, 2007, respondents filed a Complaint against Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal
and for underpayment of salary, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday, rest day, premium, service
incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, separation pay, night shift differentials, medical expense
reimbursements, retirement benefits, illegal deduction, lay-over expense and allowances, moral and
exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.
The issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not there was an illegal dismissal of the
respondents?
a single jurisdiction, forum non conveniens is a means devised to address parallel litigation arising in
multiple jurisdictions.
On the matter of pleading forum non conveniens, we state the rule, thus: Forum non conveniens must not
only be clearly pleaded as a ground for dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at the earliest possible
opportunity. Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived.
It further stated:
Forum non conveniens finds no application and does not operate to divest Philippine tribunals of
jurisdiction and to require the application of foreign law. Saudia invokes forum non conveniens to
supposedly effectuate the stipulations of the Cabin Attendant contracts that require the application of the
laws of Saudi Arabia.
xxx
So informed and animated, we emphasize the glaringly discriminatory nature of Saudias policy. As argued
by respondents, Saudias policy entails the termination of employment of flight attendants who become
pregnant. At the risk of stating the obvious, pregnancy is an occurrence that pertains specifically to
women. Saudias policy excludes from and restricts employment on the basis of no other consideration but
sex.
We do not lose sight of the reality that pregnancy does present physical limitations that may render
difficult the performance of functions associated with being a flight attendant. Nevertheless, it would be
the height of iniquity to view pregnancy as a disability so permanent and immutable that it must entail the
termination of ones employment. It is clear to us that any individual, regardless of gender, may be subject
to exigencies that limit the performance of functions. However, we fail to appreciate how pregnancy could
be such an impairing occurrence that it leaves no other recourse but the complete termination of the
means through which a woman earns a living.
Oddly enough, the petitioner Saudia themselves stated that the Saudi law does not allow the termination
of employment of women who take maternity leaves;
Consistent with lex loci intentionis, to the extent that it is proper and practicable (i.e., to make an
intelligent decision), Philippine tribunals may apply the foreign law selected by the parties. In fact, (albeit
without meaning to make a pronouncement on the accuracy and reliability of respondents citation) in this
case, respondents themselves have made averments as to the laws of Saudi Arabia. In their Comment,
respondents write:
Under the Labor Laws of Saudi Arabia and the Philippines[,] it is illegal and unlawful to terminate the
employment of any woman by virtue of pregnancy. The law in Saudi Arabia is even more harsh and strict
[sic] in that no employer can terminate the employment of a female worker or give her a warning of the
same while on Maternity Leave, the specific provision of Saudi Labor Laws on the matter is hereto quoted
as follows: An employer may not terminate the employment of a female worker or give her a warning of
the same while on maternity leave. (Article 155, Labor Law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Royal Decree
No. M/51.)