I.

Definition of immorality

Immorality pertains to a course of conduct that offends the morals of the

community.1 It connotes conduct or acts that are willful, flagrant or shameless,
and that shows indifference to the moral standards of the upright and
respectable members of the community.2

II. On Concept of immorality

Conducts described as immoral or disgraceful refer to those acts that plainly

contradict accepted standards of right and wrong behavior; they are prohibited
because they are detrimental to the conditions on which depend the existence
and progress of human society.3
III. On Factors that determine whether a particular conduct is immoral

In other words, it is the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct per
se as viewed in relation with the conduct generally accepted by society as
respectable or moral, which determines whether the conduct is disgraceful or
immoral.4 The determination of whether a particular conduct is immoral involves:

(1) a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct;

and (2) an assessment of these circumstances in the light of the prevailing
norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and
respectable,30 and of the applicable laws.

Sexual acts and intimacies between two consenting adults belong, as a

principled ideal, to the realm of purely private relations. Whether aroused by lust
or inflamed by sincere affection, sexual acts should be carried out at such place,
time and circumstance that, by the generally accepted norms of conduct, will not
offend public decency nor disturb the generally held or accepted social morals.
Under these parameters, sexual acts between two consenting adults do not
have a place in the work environment. 5
1 Santos v. NLRC, 350 Phil. 560, 568 (1998), as cited in Zaida R. Inocente vs. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and

Aging, Inc., G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016

2 Elvin B. Villanueva, Immorality as Basis of Employee Dismissal, 2017, available at

https://www.ebvlaw.com/2017/01/25/immorality-as-basis-of-employee-dismissal/ (last accessed April 5, 2019)

3 Leus v. St. Scholastica's College, G.R. supra note 27, as cited in Zaida R. Inocente vs. St. Vincent Foundation for

Children and Aging, Inc., G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016

4 Zaida R. Inocente vs. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc., G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016 as cited in,

Elvin B. Villanueva, Immorality as Basis of Employee Dismissal, 2017 (last accessed April 5, 2019)

5 In Imasen Philippine Manufacturing Corporation vs. Alcon and Papa, G.R. No. 194884, October 22, 2014

In the case at bar, Trixie and her boyfriend who were engaged in sexual
intercourse outside company premises and off-duty, are not punishable
misconduct nor was it immoral; it is merely a private matter. What would be
considered immoral, is performing the act during office hours and within the
company premises that could possibly tarnish the company’s reputation.

Considering the leakage of the said sex video, it is beyond Trixie’s capacity to
prevent such incident, she is merely a victim. Also, the incident is not related
nor significant to her work performance, duties and responsibilities as an
employee.

IV. On Secular and not religious standards as basis for dismissal due to
immorality

In determining whether the acts complained of constitute “disgraceful and

immoral” behavior under the Civil Service Laws, the distinction between public
and secular morality on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other hand,
should be kept in mind. This distinction as expressed albeit not exclusive in the
law, on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, is important because
the jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality. 6
In every dismissal situation, the employer bears the burden of proving the
existence of just or authorized cause for the dismissal and the observance of due
process requirements. This rule implements the security of tenure of the
Constitution by imposing the burden of proof on employers in termination of
employment situations. 7 The failure on the part of the employer to discharge this
burden renders the dismissal invalid.

6 Elvin B. Villanueva, Immorality as Basis of Employee Dismissal, 2017, available at

https://www.ebvlaw.com/2017/01/25/immorality-as-basis-of-employee-dismissal/ (last accessed April 5, 2019)

7 Zaida R. Inocente vs. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc., G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016 as cited in,

Elvin B. Villanueva, Immorality as Basis of Employee Dismissal, 2017 (last accessed April 5, 2019)

Mere private sexual relations between two unmarried and consenting adults does
not warrant disciplinary action mere private sexual relations between two
unmarried and consenting adults, even if the relations result in pregnancy or
miscarriage out of wedlock and without more, are not enough to warrant liability
for illicit behavior. The voluntary intimacy between two unmarried adults, where
both are not under any impediment to marry, where no deceit exists, and which
was done in complete privacy, is neither criminal nor so unprincipled as to
warrant disciplinary action.8

Two requisites of valid dismissal (in general); Absence or presence of just or

authorized cause is the more crucial

1.Just or authorized cause

2.Procedural requirements

Of these two requisites for a valid dismissal, the presence or absence of just or
authorized cause is the more crucial.
Absence of just or authorized automatically renders dismissal illegal

The absence of a valid cause automatically renders any dismissal action

invalid, regardless of the employer’s observance of the procedural due
process requirements. 9

V. On Solving the Moral Dilemma

In order to solve the moral dilemma in this case, is to apprehend the person
liable for the leakage of the sex video, not only will it bring justice to Trixie’s feat,
but will also clear the company’s name.

It would be a better option to keep Trixie who is a long-standing, hard-working

employee with a good performance record provided that the company's exposure
to liability will be minimal, even if no action was taken, rather than haphazardly
terminating her tenure without just cause.

8 Elvin B. Villanueva, Immorality as Basis of Employee Dismissal, 2017, available at

https://www.ebvlaw.com/2017/01/25/immorality-as-basis-of-employee-dismissal/ (last accessed April 5, 2019)

9 Elvin B. Villanueva, Immorality as Basis of Employee Dismissal, 2017, available at

https://www.ebvlaw.com/2017/01/25/immorality-as-basis-of-employee-dismissal/ (last accessed April 5, 2019)

ON THE BASIS OF MISCONDUCT

Management's right to dismiss an employee; serious misconduct as just

cause for the dismissal

The just causes for dismissing an employee are provided under Article 282 (now
Article 296) of the Labor Code. Under Article 282(a), serious misconduct by the
employee justifies the employer in terminating his or her employment.
Misconduct is defined as an improper or wrong conduct. It is a transgression of
some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty,
willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.To
constitute a valid cause for the dismissal within the text and meaning of Article
282 of the Labor Code, the employee's misconduct must be serious, i.e., of
such grave and aggravated character and not merely trivial or unimportant.

Additionally, the misconduct must be related to the performance of the

employee's duties showing him to be unfit to continue working for the
employer. Further, and equally important and required, the act or conduct must
have been performed with wrongful intent.

To summarize, for misconduct or improper behavior to be a just cause for

dismissal, the following elements must concur: (a) the misconduct must be
serious; (b) it must relate to the performance of the employee's duties showing
that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the employer; and (c)
it must have been performed with wrongful intent. (In Imasen Philippine
Manufacturing Corporation vs. Alcon and Papa (G.R. No. 194884, October
22, 2014)

ON THE BASIS OF SALES? BUSINESS? (WITH REGARDS TO HOW TO

SOLVE THE MORAL DILEMMA) ADDITIONAL CHUCHU LANG TO…. HEHE

Generally, an employee's off-duty conduct is off-limits as far as employers are

concerned. Exceptions do exist if there is some relationship between the off-duty
conduct and your business and if misconduct outside of the workplace poses a
risk for your business.

To determine whether there is any action that you can take regarding an
employee's lawful off-duty conduct, ask yourself the following questions:
 Is there a relationship between the off-duty conduct of the employee and
the performance of the employee's job?
 Does the employee's off-duty conduct put your business in an unfavorable
light with the public?
 Does the employee's conduct have a potential for harming the business?
When faced with off-duty conduct situations, it's important to make the distinction
between lawful and unlawful off-duty conduct. If the conduct in question is lawful,
you may not be able to do anything about it, and some laws expressly prohibit
employers from discriminating against employees for engaging in lawful off-duty
conduct. Examples of such conduct would be smoking and participating in
demonstrations.
However, if you can show that the employee's off-duty conduct hurts the way the
employee does the job or reflects negatively on the business, you may be able to
address it.
In handling off-duty misconduct, you need to examine the relationship between
the person's job and the misconduct — is it something that is likely to affect
business?
To find out how much of a connection there is between the misconduct and the
business, consider the following:
 the employee's specific job duties and responsibilities
 the employee's history with the company
 the nature of your business
 the effect on the customers, the coworkers, and the business's reputation
and sales
 the seriousness and notoriety of the allegations
If there is a sufficient connection between the job and the allegations, taking
some sort of action may be justified.