BAYLOSIS, LOUIS LLOYD I.

STUDENT NUMBER: 20190174153

CHERYLL SANTOS LEUS, Petitioner,

vs.
ST. SCHOLASTICA'S COLLEGE WESTGROVE and/or SR. EDNA QUIAMBAO,
OSB, Respondents.

G.R. No. 187226               January 28, 2015

FACTS:

In Silang, Cavite, there is a catholic and sectarian educational institution called SSCW. The
petitioner was employed by SSCW in May 2001 as the Director of the Lay Apostolate and
Community Outreach Directorate's Assistant.
The petitioner and her boyfriend had an unmarried kid sometime in 2003. When SSCW
discovered the petitioner was expecting, Sr. The director of SSCW, Edna Quiambao (Sr.
Quiambao), urged her to submit a letter of resignation with an effective date of June 1, 2003. The
petitioner informed Sr. in response. She assured Quiambao that she would not quit her job since
she became pregnant without the benefit of marriage.

ISSUES:

1. Does the 1992 MRPS, rather than the Labor Code, regulate the dismissal of teaching and
non-teaching staff from private schools?

2. Is the petitioner's pregnancy out of wedlock a legal reason to fire her from her job?

LAW:

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:
BAYLOSIS, LOUIS LLOYD I.

STUDENT NUMBER: 20190174153

xxxx
e. Disgraceful or immoral conduct;
Section 70 of BP 232 vests the Secretary of Education with the authority to issue rules and
regulations to implement the provisions of BP 232.

Section 57 specifically empowers the Department of Education to promulgate rules and

regulations necessary for the administration, supervision and regulation of the educational
system in accordance with the declared policy of BP 232.
Section 69 of BP 232 specifically authorizes the Secretary of Education to "prescribe and impose
such administrative sanction as he may deem reasonable and appropriate in the implementing
rules and regulations" for the "[g]ross inefficiency of the teaching or non-teaching personnel" of
private schools.
Article 111 of the Labor Code. "It is settled that where an employee was forced to litigate and,
thus, incur expenses to protect his rights and interest, the award of attorney’s fees is legally and
morally justifiable."
Art. 282. Termination by employer. An employer may terminate an employment for any of the
following causes: Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; Gross and habitual neglect
by the employee of his duties;

CASE HISTORY:

May 2001- SSCW hired the petitioner as an Assistant to SSCW’s Director of the Lay Apostolate
and Community Outreach Directorate;
Sometime in 2003- and her boyfriend conceived a child out of wedlock;

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;

May 31, 2003- the petitioner explained that her pregnancy out of wedlock does not amount to
serious misconduct or conduct unbecoming of an employee;
BAYLOSIS, LOUIS LLOYD I.

STUDENT NUMBER: 20190174153

June 01, 2003- when SSCW learned of the petitioner’s pregnancy, Sr. Edna Quiambao (Sr.
Quiambao), SSCW’s Directress, advised her to file a resignation letter;

June 02, 2003- Sr. Quiambao informed the petitioner that, pending the promulgation of a
"Support Staff Handbook," SSCW follows the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools
(1992 MRPS) on the causes for termination of employments; that Section 94(e) of the 1992
MRPS cites "disgraceful or immoral conduct" as a ground for dismissal in addition to the just
causes for termination of employment provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code;

June 04, 2003- the petitioner, through counsel, sent Sr. Quiambao a letter;

June 06, 2003- SSCW, through counsel, maintained that pre-marital sexual relations, evenif
between two consenting adults without legal impediment to marry, is considered a disgraceful
and immoral conduct or a serious misconduct, which are grounds for the termination of
employment under the 1992 MRPS and the Labor Code;

June 09, 2003- the petitioner informed Sr. Quiambao that she adopts her counsel’s letter dated
June 4, 2003 as her written explanation;

June 11, 2003- Sr. Quiambao informed the petitioner that her employment with SSCW is
terminated on the ground of serious misconduct;

February 28, 2006- the Labor Arbiter (LA) rendered a Decision, in NLRC Case No. 6-17657-03-
C which dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner. The LA found that there was a valid
ground for the petitioner’s dismissal; that her pregnancy out of wedlock is considered as a
"disgraceful and immoral conduct."

February 28, 2007- the NLRC issued a Resolution, which affirmed the LA Decision dated
February 28, 2006. The NLRC pointed out that the termination of the employment of the
personnel of private schools is governed by the 1992 MRPS; that Section 94(e) thereof cites
"disgraceful or immoral conduct" as a just cause for dismissal, in addition to the grounds for
termination of employment provided for under Article 282 of the Labor Code;

September 24, 2008- the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision, which denied the petition for
certiorari filed by the petitioner. The CA held that it is the provisions of the 1992 MRPS and not
the Labor Code which governs the termination of employment of teaching and non-teaching
personnel of private school;
BAYLOSIS, LOUIS LLOYD I.

STUDENT NUMBER: 20190174153

RULING:

1. YES. The 1992 MRPS, the regulation in force at the time of the instant controversy.
Furthermore, the petitioner never questioned the legality of the 1992 MRPS's provisions
in the proceedings before the LA, NLRC, or CA.

2. NO. The court ruled that, citing the case of Chua-Qua v. Clave, it is the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the conduct alleged to be disgraceful or immoral must be
assessed against the prevailing norms of conduct.

OPINION:

A conduct only qualifies as disgraceful or immoral if it departs from what society generally
deems to be moral or acceptable. To put it simply, it must be proven through credible evidence
that a particular behavior is deemed dishonorable or immoral in comparison to the socially
acceptable norms of conduct. I concur that moral evaluations based on religion might have a
strong impact on persons making decisions about what conduct deserves legal punishment in
public.
But when the law refers to immoral or, necessarily, disgraceful behavior, it refers to public and
secular morality; it refers to behaviors that are forbidden because they are harmful to the
conditions that are essential to the existence and advancement of human society.