CHUA – QUA vs. CLAVE G.R. No.

L-49549 August 30, 1990

FACTS:
This would have been just another illegal dismissal case were it not for the controversial and unique situation that the marriage of herein petitioner, then a
classroom teacher, to her student who was fourteen (14) years her junior, was considered by the school authorities as sufficient basis for terminating her services.
The case was about an affair and marriage of 30 years old teacher Evelyn Chua in Tay Tung High School in Bacolod City to her 16 years old student. The petitioner
teacher was suspended without pay and was terminated of his employment “for Abusive and Unethical Conduct Unbecoming of a Dignified School Teacher” which
was filed by a public respondent as a clearance for termination.

ISSUE:
Was her dismissal valid? Whether or not there is substantial evidence to prove that the antecedent facts which culminated in the marriage between petitioner
and her student constitute immorality and or grave misconduct?

RULING:
The Supreme Court declared the dismissal illegal saying:
“Private respondent [the school] utterly failed to show that petitioner [30-year old lady teacher] took advantage of her position to court her student [16-year
old]. If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has
reasons of its own which reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality.
The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.”

Finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of Code of Ethics governing school teachers would
have no basis. Private respondent utterly failed to show that petitioner took advantage of her position to court her student. The deviation of the circumstances
of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.

LEUS v ST SCHOLASTICA
Facts:
Petitioner) was hired by St. Scholastica's College Westgrove (SSCW), a Catholic educational institution, as a non-teaching personnel, engaged in pre-marital sexual
relations, got pregnant out of wedlock... married the father of her child,... and was dismissed by SSCW, in that order.
petitioner and her boyfriend conceived a child out of wedlock. When SSCW learned of the petitioner's pregnancy, Sr. Edna Quiambao... advised her to file a
resignation letter effective June 1, 2003. In response, the petitioner... informed Sr. Quiambao that she would not resign from her employment just because she
got pregnant... without the benefit of marriage. Quiambao formally directed the petitioner to explain in writing why she should not be dismissed for engaging in
pre-marital sexual relations and getting pregnant as a result thereof, which amounts to serious misconduct and conduct unbecoming of an employee... of a Catholic
school.
In a letter[11] dated June 6, 2003, SSCW, through counsel, maintained that pre-marital sexual relations, even if between two consenting adults without legal
impediment to marry, is considered a disgraceful and immoral conduct or a serious misconduct, which... are grounds for the termination of employmen... petitioner
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
Issues: whether pregnancy out of wedlock by an employee of a catholic educational institution is a cause for the termination of her employment.
Ruling:
The fact of the petitioner's pregnancy out of wedlock, without more, is not enough to characterize the petitioner's conduct as disgraceful or immoral.
There must be substantial evidence to establish that pre-marital sexual relations and, consequently,... pregnancy out of wedlock, are indeed considered disgraceful
or immoral. The totality of the circumstances... surrounding the conduct alleged to be... disgraceful or immoral must be assessed... against the prevailing norms
of conduct. Consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and second, an assessment of the said circumstances vis-à-vis the...
prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and respectable. The right of an employee to security of tenure is protected by the
Constitution. When the law refers to morality, it necessarily pertains to public and secular morality and not religious morality. Thus, the proscription against
"disgraceful or immoral conduct" under Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS, which is made as a cause for dismissal, must necessarily... refer to public and secular
morality.

Jose S. Santos v. NLRC et al. case brief summary G.R. No. 115795, March 6, 1998
FACTS: Petitioner is a married man and is employed as a teacher by private respondent Hagonoy Institute Inc. from June 1980 until his dismissal on June 1, 1991.
Petitioner and Mrs. Arlene T. Martin, also a teacher employed at Hagonoy Institute, fell in love and had an affair. Private respondent, upon hearing of circulating
rumors among faculty and school officials, of the illicit relationship of petitioner and Mrs. Martin, advised the latter to take a leave of absence, Mrs. Martin ignored
such notice and was henceforth prevented from entering the campus of private respondent, effectively dismissing her from work. Private respondent set-up a
committee to investigate the veracity of the rumors, after two weeks of investigation, the illicit relationship of petitioner and Mrs. Martin was confirmed. Petitioner
was charged administratively for immorality and asked to present his side, on May 1991, petitioner was dismissed effective June 1, 1991. Petitioner filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch No. III, San Fernando, Pampanga and petitioner’s complaint was dismissed but awarded
financial assistance of PHP 13,750. On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter.
ISSUE: Can the illicit relationship between the petitioner and Mrs. Martin be considered immoral as to constitute a cause for termination under Art. 282 of the
Labor Code?
RULING: Court reiterates that to constitute a valid dismissal, two requisites must concur: (a) it must be for any offense expressed in Art. 282 of the Labor Code, (b)
employee must be accorded due process, that is, the opportunity to be heard and to defend oneself. Art. 282 of the Labor Code lists the following just causes to
terminate an employee: (1) serious misconduct or willful disobedience by employee of lawful orders of the employer or his representative in connection with his
work, (2) gross and habitual neglect by employee of his duties; (3) fraud or willful breach, (4) commission of crime or offense of the person of his employer or his
family or his authorized representative, (5) other courses analogous to the foregoing.
In addition, Section 94, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, paragraph E, lists “disgraceful or immoral conduct” as ground for termination. Furthermore, the
Court ruled that Art. 68 of the Family Code enjoins the husband and wife to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support.” As a teacher, one stands in loco parentis to his students and must therefore act with a high standard of integrity and honesty. It is settled therefore that
a teacher who engages in extra marital affairs, when both are married, amounts to gross immorality justifying termination from employment.
Petition is dismissed, NLRC decision is affirmed with modification, deleting financial assistance.