TAN, Cherlene Mae D.

LabStan Mon
G.R. No. 187417 February 24, 2016
CHRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ vs. BRENT HOSPITAL AND COLLEGES, INC.
Ponente: REYES, J.

FACTS:
The petitioner, Christine Joy Cadiz (Cadiz), became pregnant out of wedlock by his boyfriend while she was
still employed as the Human Resource Officer of the respondent, Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc. (Brent). She was
indefinitely suspended because of her Unprofessionalism and Unethical Behavior Resulting to Unwed Pregnancy and
can only be reinstated until such time that she marries her boyfriend in accordance with law.

Cadiz then filed a complaint for Unfair Labor Practice, Constructive Dismissal, Non-Payment of Wages and
Damages with prayer for Reinstatement with the Labor Arbiter (LA). The ruling of LA is that Brent did not illegally
dismissed Cadiz and that her indefinite suspension amounted to constructive dismissal as there was just cause for
her dismissal since she has engaged in in premarital sexual relations with her boyfriend resulting in a pregnancy out
of wedlock. The LA deemed said act to be immoral, which was punishable by dismissal under conduct under Section
94(e) of the 1992 MRPS and which likewise constituted serious misconduct under Article 282(a) of the Labor Code.

Cadiz appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which, however, affirmed the LA
decision. She filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied. She elevated her case to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The CA, however, dismissed her petition. She then sought for reconsideration, but it was, again, denied.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not Christine Joy Cadiz’ premarital relations with her boyfriend and the resulting pregnancy out
of wedlock constitute immorality, hence a valid ground for dismissal?
2. Whether or not the stipulation that marriage as a condition for reinstatement is valid?
RULING:
1. NO. To resolve this, the Court referred to the case of Cheryll Santos Leus v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove
and/or Sr. Edna Quiambao, OSB wherein it was ruled 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-a-vis the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what
the society generally considers moral and respectable. In this case, the Court found that the surrounding facts leading
to Cadiz’s dismissal do not readily equate to disgraceful and immoral conduct. Brent’s Policy Manual and Employee’s
Manual of Policies do not define what constitutes immorality; it simply stated immorality as a ground for disciplinary
action.

Court stated that jurisprudence has already set the standard of morality with which an act should be gauged - it is
public and secular, not religious. 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, which must be established by substantial evidence.

Hence, "premarital sexual relations between two consenting adults who have no impediment to marry each other,
and, consequently, conceiving a child out of wedlock, gauged from a purely public and secular view of morality, does
not amount to a disgraceful or immoral conduct under Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS.

2. NO. The Court opined that the doctrine of management prerogative gives an employer the right to "regulate, according
to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods,
the time, place and manner of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline,
dismissal, and recall of employees." However, Statutory law is replete with legislation protecting labor and promoting
equal opportunity in employment. The Labor Code, for instance, provides a stipulation against marriage. Also,
Republic Act No. 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women protects women against discrimination in all matters relating to
marriage and family relations, including the right to choose freely a spouse and to enter into marriage only with their
free and full consent.

Therefore, Brent's condition is coercive, oppressive, and discriminatory. It forces Cadiz to marry for economic reasons
and deprives her of the freedom to choose her status, which is a privilege that inheres in her as an intangible and
inalienable right While a marriage or no-marriage qualification may be justified as a "bona fide occupational
qualification," Brent must prove two factors necessitating its imposition, viz: (1) that the employment qualification is
reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is a factual basis for believing that
all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.

Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc. has not shown the presence of these factors. Hence, the Court cannot uphold the
validity of said condition.