The Supreme Court ruled that a school illegally dismissed a teacher for being pregnant out of wedlock. This decision underscores that pregnancy outside of marriage, without evidence of societal disgrace or immorality, cannot be grounds for termination. The ruling aims to protect women from discrimination based on their marital status and reproductive choices, reaffirming their rights to privacy and equal protection under the law. By setting this precedent, the Court emphasizes that employment decisions must align with public and secular standards of morality, rather than the subjective views of institutions.

Love, Labor, and Liberty: Can a Teacher Be Fired for Being Pregnant Out of Wedlock?

Charley Jane Dagdag, an elementary school teacher at Union School International, faced a predicament when she became pregnant. She informed her school head that she was pregnant, and the father was marrying another woman. The school then initiated disciplinary actions against her for alleged gross immorality, suggesting resignation as a better option than dismissal. Feeling pressured, Dagdag filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter (LA) initially sided with Dagdag, but the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed the decision, leading Dagdag to appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), which ultimately ruled in her favor.

The central legal question was whether Dagdag’s pregnancy out of wedlock constituted just cause for termination. The petitioners argued that Dagdag violated the school’s Faculty and Staff Handbook and the Professional Code of Ethics for Teachers, citing gross immorality. The court had to weigh the school’s claims against Dagdag’s right to privacy and protection from discrimination. This case hinges on the interpretation of gross immorality and its applicability to pregnancy out of wedlock in the context of employment.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on existing jurisprudence, particularly the cases of Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc. and Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove, et al. In Capin-Cadiz, the Court established that the standard of morality should be public and secular, not religious. It emphasized that conduct should be assessed against prevailing societal norms and that substantial evidence must prove premarital relations and pregnancy out of wedlock are disgraceful or immoral. Similarly, Leus held that pregnancy out of wedlock is not a just cause for termination unless it demonstrates disgraceful or immoral conduct.

Justice Jardeleza, in his concurring opinion, argued that an unmarried woman has a fundamental liberty interest to engage in consensual sexual relations with an unmarried man and bear a child. He emphasized the importance of recognizing this right and protecting it from arbitrary interference. Justice Jardeleza also highlighted that a contrary ruling would violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection, leading to unwarranted differential treatment between men and women in similar circumstances. He noted that the Labor Code does not differentiate between married and unmarried women regarding maternity leave benefits and that laws like the Solo Parents’ Welfare Act support unwed mothers.

The Court highlighted the importance of examining the totality of circumstances to determine whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral. This involves assessing the circumstances against prevailing societal norms, i.e., what society generally considers moral and respectable. The Court emphasized that the lack of legal impediment to marry between Dagdag and the father of her child at the time of conception was a significant factor. The Court noted the contradiction in societal views, where abortion is illegal and discouraged, yet pregnancy outside marriage faces stigma, emphasizing that women should not be penalized for choosing to carry their pregnancies to term.

The Supreme Court explicitly referenced Article 135 of the Labor Code, which prohibits discrimination against women based on their sex. The CA had correctly determined that the school’s actions constituted a violation of this provision. The court reiterated that employers cannot discharge a woman employee solely based on her pregnancy. By upholding Dagdag’s claim of illegal dismissal, the Court reinforced the protective measures designed to prevent discrimination against women in the workplace.

The implications of this ruling are far-reaching. Schools and other institutions must now ensure their policies align with secular standards of morality and do not discriminate against employees based on marital status or pregnancy. The case serves as a reminder that employment decisions must be based on objective criteria and not on subjective moral judgments. Additionally, the decision reinforces the constitutional rights of women to privacy and equal protection, preventing employers from infringing upon these rights.

This case underscores the evolving understanding of morality in the Philippines and the need for laws and policies to reflect contemporary societal norms. While traditional views may still hold sway in some sectors, the Supreme Court has made it clear that employment decisions must adhere to secular standards and protect individual liberties. The decision also highlights the importance of due process in disciplinary actions, ensuring employees are not coerced into resignation and are afforded a fair hearing.

The decision emphasizes that employers must ensure their policies and practices do not unduly burden women. Employers cannot place women in situations where they must choose between their jobs and their fundamental rights. By recognizing the right of women to make personal choices about their reproductive lives, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principles of equality and non-discrimination in the workplace. This decision safeguards the rights of women and promotes a more inclusive and equitable work environment.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Union School International illegally dismissed Charley Jane Dagdag based on her pregnancy out of wedlock, which the school considered gross immorality. The court examined whether the school’s actions violated Dagdag’s rights to privacy and protection from discrimination.
What is constructive dismissal?	Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer makes continued employment impossible or unreasonable for an employee. This includes demotion in rank, diminution in pay, or creating an unbearable work environment due to discrimination or insensitivity.
What does the Labor Code say about discrimination against women?	Article 135 of the Labor Code prohibits employers from discriminating against women employees based on their sex. This includes discrimination in terms and conditions of employment, which can encompass termination based on pregnancy.
What standard of morality should be used in employment decisions?	The standard of morality should be public and secular, not religious. This means that conduct should be assessed against prevailing societal norms rather than the subjective views of an institution.
Is pregnancy out of wedlock automatically considered gross immorality?	No, pregnancy out of wedlock is not automatically considered gross immorality. There must be substantial evidence to show that the premarital relations and subsequent pregnancy are considered disgraceful or immoral by societal standards.
What did the Court consider in determining whether the dismissal was illegal?	The Court considered the totality of circumstances, including the lack of legal impediment to marry between Dagdag and the father of her child. The court also noted that the school had presented Dagdag with only two options—resignation or dismissal—indicating predetermination.
What is the significance of the Capin-Cadiz case?	The Capin-Cadiz case established that a woman has the right to choose her status, including the decision to marry or raise a child without marriage. It also affirmed the principle that employment policies cannot unduly burden women’s freedom to make personal choices.
What are the implications for schools and other institutions?	Schools and other institutions must ensure their policies align with secular standards of morality and do not discriminate against employees based on marital status or pregnancy. They must also ensure due process in disciplinary actions.
What remedies are available to an illegally dismissed employee?	An illegally dismissed employee is entitled to reinstatement or separation pay, full backwages, and attorney’s fees. The exact amount is determined by the Labor Arbiter based on the employee’s tenure and salary.

This Supreme Court decision is a landmark victory for women’s rights in the workplace, establishing firm protection against discrimination based on pregnancy outside of marriage. It serves as a critical reminder that employment decisions must align with secular morality and respect fundamental rights. The case reinforces the importance of due process and fair treatment, ensuring that employees are not unduly pressured or discriminated against based on personal circumstances.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Union School International v. Dagdag, G.R. No. 234186, November 21, 2018