Jose S. Santos v. NLRC et al.

case brief summary

Jose S. Santos v. NLRC et al. case brief summary
Ang Labor Code of the Philippines ang batas na angkop sa inyong sitwasyon. Ayon
sa Artikulo 282 ng nasabing batas:
“An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes:
(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful
orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work;
(b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties;
(c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his
employer or duly authorized representative;
(d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his
employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized
representatives; and
(e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.”

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.

From the foregoing, it seems obvious that when a teacher engages in extra-marital
relationship, especially when the parties are both married, such behaviour
amounts to immorality, justifying his termination from employment.”
After a painstaking perusal of the records, we are of the considered view that
the determination of the legality of the dismissal hinges on the issue of 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. To constitute immorality, the circumstances
of each particular case must be holistically considered and evaluated in the
light of prevailing norms of conduct and the applicable law. Contrary to what
petitioner had insisted on from the very start, what is before us is a factual
question, the resolution of which is better left to the trier of facts.
With the finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral
acts, it follows that the alleged violation of the 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. 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.” (Binigyan ng diin).