Professional Documents
Culture Documents
36 Cadiz Vs Brent - Compress
36 Cadiz Vs Brent - Compress
187417
Colleges Inc
February 24, 2016 REYES, J.
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Women Employees
SUMMARY:
P was indefinitely suspended because she became pregnant out of wedlock. R, an institution of
the Episcopal Church, imposed suspension until she marries her bf. ISSUE: WON the condition
was valid. SC ruled that it was not valid. First, there was no showing that being pregnant out of
wedlock was grossly immoral as a sufficient ground for disciplinary action. Second (related to
the topic), the LC and Magna Carta of Women protect women against discrimination in 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. In this case, the condition
was coercive, oppressive and discriminatory. There is no reason for it. It deprives her of the
freedom to choose her status, which is a privilege inherent in her as an intangible right.
ISSUES:
1. WON CA committed GAD in ruling that (1) P’s petition is dismissible on the
ground of technical deficiencies; and (2) that NLRC did not commit GAD in
upholding her dismissal from employment
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT/S: Optional. You can include in “Held” part, if digest would make
more sense that way.
1. P contends that getting pregnant outside of wedlock is not grossly immoral, especially
when both partners do not have any legal impediment to marry
2. P surmises that the reason for her suspension was not because of her relationship with
ther then bf but because of the resulting pregnancy.
3. P alleges that the condition for her reinstatement violates the stipulation against marriage
under LC 136.
4. P also contends that there was substantial compliance with the rules of procedure and
that CA should not have dismissed the petition
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT: Optional. You can include in “Held” part, if digest would make
more sense that way.
1. R reiterates that P’s arguments are irrational and out of context.
HELD:
1. Rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the attainment of justice
ROC Rule 46 Sec 3 states that the contents of petition filed with the CA shall indicate
material dates when a motion for new trial or reconsideration was filed. Rational is to
enable CA to determine if it was filed within the period fixed in the rules. P’s failure to
state the date of receipt of the NLRC decision is not fatal since the more important date is
the date of receipt of the resolution of denial of MFR, which was duly complied with.
The failure to attach the registry receipt was also fatal but Courts finds that the ends of
substantial justice would be better served by relaxing the application of technical rules of
procedure.
Regarding the counsel’s failure to indicate the place where the IBP and PTR receipts were
issued, there was substantial compliance since it was indicated in the verification and cert
of non-forum shopping