Dear PAO,

My brother works for a private company in Parañaque City. He’s been with the

company for a couple of years. About three years ago, he started dating a co-

worker. No one knew that they were dating and even when they became a couple.

Although they are both single and of legal age, they have been very private about

their relationship. They got married last January. My brother learned that their

company issued a Non-Fraternization Policy late last year whereby all employees

are not allowed to date and/or have a relationship with their co-employees. Anyone

found guilty of violating said policy will be terminated. A co-employee, who

learned of their marriage, warned them that they might be investigated for serious

or immoral conduct. My brother and my sister-in-law are worried that they might

get terminated.

Kalvin

Dear Kalvin,

Serious misconduct is one of the just causes for an employee to be dismissed from

his or her employment as provided for under Article 297 [282] of the Labor

Code. More often than not, “immorality” is considered within the context of

“serious misconduct” as it shows grave disregard of existing moral standards.

But employers should exercise utmost prudence in determining the existence of

immoral conduct upon which they will base the termination of their employee and

their determination should be based on secular standards and not purely religious

standards.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Inocente vs St. Vincent Foundation for Children

and Aging Inc./Veronica Menguito (GR 202621, June 22, 2016, Ponente:

Associate Justice Arturo Brion), explained:

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

community. 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.

“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.

“xxx 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. 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, and of

the applicable laws.

“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 exclusively —

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.”

In your letter, you mentioned that your brother and sister-in-law were both single

and of legal age from the time they started dating up to the time they got married.

They also maintained their relationship privately. It also appears that they started

seeing each other and became a couple before the subject Policy was issued and

they subsequently got married. To our mind, these circumstances negate serious or

immoral conduct which would warrant termination. There appears no intention or

propensity on their part to disregard said policy, which was not yet existent at the

time their relationship blossomed. In the above-mentioned case, the Supreme

Court ruled that:

“xxx To be sure, no reasonable person could have expected them to sever the

relationship simply because St. Vincent chose to adopt the Non-Fraternization

Policy in 2006. As Zaida aptly argued, love is not a mechanical emotion that can

easily be turned on and off. This is the lesson Shakespeare impressed on us in

Romeo and Juliet — a play whose setting antedated those of Marlon and Zaida by

about 405 hundred years.

“We thus reiterate that 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.”

(Emphasis supplied)