UNION SCHOOL INTERNATIONAL V DADAG
21 November 2018 | GR Nr. 234186 | TIAM, J | Bill of Rights: Due Process
PETITIONERS: UNION SCHOOL INTERNATIONAL represented by
PASTOR ABRAHAM CHO (School Superintendent), et al.
RESPONDENT: Charley Jane Dadag, The Board of Directors of the
National Development Company, et al.
SUMMARY:
This is the case where a teacher on probation by the name of Charley
Dadag was then advised that she were to be illegally dismissed or to
resign from her job because she was pregnant out of wedlock. She was
asked then to attend meetings were the minutes indicated that she
accepted her dismissal when in fact did not really happened. The Labor
Arbiter then confirmed that she was coerced. Due to numerous filing of
appeals, all petitions of the petitioners denied their appeals.
DOCTRINE:
Art. 135. Discrimination prohibited. - It shall be unlawful for any
employer to discriminate against any woman employee with respect to
terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex.
FACTS:
1. 16 July 2012 to 31 May 2013 – Dadag was employed as an
elementary teacher on a probationary status by Union School.
2. 23 November 2012 – Dadag found out that she was 8 weeks and 5
days pregnant, and then informed Mandapat (Head teacher) of her
pregnancy and that the father of the child was marrying another
woman.
3. The matter of filing a complaint against her for gross immorality was
being discussed.
4. 12 December 2012 – Dadag received a notice addressed to the
Grievance Committee to attend a Teacher’s Disciplinary Committee
on 14 December 2012 regarding the disciplinary action against her
gross immorality.
5. Notice indicated that she was advised to nominate her representative
from the current full-time staff of the school for her failure to attend
the same, but the hearing was rescheduled on 17 December 2012.
6. During the hearing, Dadag acknowledged the contents of the
handbook and the Professional Code of Ethics, however was
appraised when she was informed that she will be dismissed from
service, and got worried that this might affect her job application in
the future, hence, she agreed to resign
7. HOWEVER, she noticed that the minutes of the meeting stated
Dadag consulted her mother and her relatives that she is willing to
accept the dismissal as a disciplinary action, but she will wait for the
decision of the school.
8. Same date – Dadg filed a complaint against the petitioners for illegal
dismissal, non-payment of salaries and benefits, moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
9. 19 December 2012 – Dadag received a Memorandum prior to the
scheduled mandatory conference from the petitioners regarding her
alleged violations discussed during the grievance committee
meeting. She was required to submit her explanation on why she
should not be dismissed.
10. Due to her failure to submit the required written explanation, the
grievance committee recommended her termination from the service.
11. Union School denied the accusations of Dadag and maintained that
they did not suspend, transfer, demote, or prevent Dadag from
working as a result from her pregnancy.
12. 07 June 2013 – Labor Arbiter issued a decision rendering that Dadag
was illegally dismissed from employment. The LA stated that the
school committed acts of persecution, discrimination, insensitivity
and disdain when Dadag was coerced into resigning from her job
after having admitted to Mandapat that she was pregnant out of
wedlock with no intentions of getting married to the father of her
child.
13. The LA decided that Union School and Mandapat must jointly pay
the backwages and allowances, moral damages, exemplary damages,
and attorney’s fees of Dadag.
14. 13 September 2013 – National Labor Relations Commission issued a
decision wherein it vacated the decision of the LA and dismissed the
complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims of Dadag for lack
of merit.
15. NLRC held that there was no evidence that Dadag was ever
subjected to persecution or contempt after she reported her
pregnancy, so she failed to prove by substantial evidence that she
was constructively dismissed.
16. When the petitioner was aggrieved, the case was then elevated to the
CA.
17. 10 November 2016 – CA annulled and set aside the ruling of the
NLRC. It was then confirmed that Dadag was illegally dismissed
from service, as the meeting stated that she was given the freedom to
decide whether she would resign or be dismissed from the service.
 18. 17 May 2017 – Motion for reconsideration was filed by the act does not conform to the traditional moral views of a certain
petitioners but was then denied. sectarian institution is not sufficient reason to qualify such act as
immoral unless it, likewise, does not conform to public and secular
ISSUES: standards. More importantly, there must be substantial evidence to
Whether or not Dadag’s conduct was disgraceful or immoral? establish that premarital sexual relations and pregnancy out of
wedlock is considered disgraceful or immoral.
RULING: 6. Art. 135. Discrimination prohibited. - It shall be unlawful for any
employer to discriminate against any woman employee with respect
The petition was DENIED. to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex.

RATIO:
1. Petition was without merit.
2. Constructive dismissal is a cessation of work because continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when
there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay or both; or when a clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee."[20] "The test of constructive dismissal is
whether a reasonable person in the employee's position would have felt
compelled to give up his employment/position under the circumstances.
3. Mandapat's act of suggesting that Dagdag should simply tender her
resignation, as the school may impose harsher penalties, left Dagdag
with no choice but to discontinue working for Union School. Also,
the CA noted that although there was a conduct of grievance
meeting, its outcome was already predetermined as petitioners were
already resolute in their decision to terminate Dagdag's employment.
This is evident by the fact that Dagdag was left with two choices—
resignation or dismissal and threatening her with possible revocation
of her teaching license
4. To determine whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral, a
consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
conduct; and an assessment of the said circumstances vis-a-vis the
prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally
considers moral and respectable, are necessary.
5. In the case of Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc.[25] it
is held that:
Jurisprudence has already set the standard of morality with
which an act should be gauged — it is public and secular, not
religious. Whether a conduct is considered disgraceful or immoral
should be made in accordance with the prevailing norms of conduct,
which, as stated in Leus, refer to those conducts which are proscribed
because they are detrimental to conditions upon which depend the
existence and progress of human society. The fact that a particular