View full case

CHRISTINE JOY CAPIN-CADIZ v. BRENT HOSPITAL

FACTS:

Cadiz, the petitioner, worked as the Human Resource Officer at Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc. She was indefinitely suspended from her employment due to her pregnancy out of wedlock, which the respondent deemed as unprofessional and unethical behavior. Cadiz filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter (LA) for unfair labor practices, constructive dismissal, non-payment of wages, and damages.

The LA ruled that Cadiz's indefinite suspension amounted to constructive dismissal. However, the LA also found that the respondent had just cause for her dismissal due to her premarital sexual relations resulting in a pregnancy out of wedlock. The LA further stated that Cadiz's conduct was magnified as serious misconduct because she was employed by an institution of the Episcopal Church. The LA ordered the respondent to pay Cadiz 13th month pay but dismissed her other claims.

Cadiz appealed the LA's decision to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), which affirmed the LA's decision. The NLRC denied Cadiz's motion for reconsideration. Cadiz then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA dismissed her petition due to technical defects. The CA also ruled that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in upholding Cadiz's dismissal. Cadiz filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in dismissing her appeal and that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in upholding her dismissal.

Cadiz's dismissal was based on her involvement in premarital sexual relations, resulting in her becoming pregnant out of wedlock. The employer considered this act as immoral and a violation of their rules. Both the LA and the NLRC upheld Cadiz's dismissal, citing immorality as a just cause for termination. However, the CA dismissed her petition due to technical defects in her filing. Cadiz argued that these defects should not invalidate her case as they did not go against substantial justice. The Supreme Court agreed and gave due course to her petition.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the premarital relations and pregnancy out of wedlock of the employee constitute immorality.

  2. Whether the acts of the employee scandalized the Brent community.

  3. Whether the employer can require the employee to subsequently contract marriage in order to be reinstated.

  4. Whether the employer's condition is coercive, oppressive, and discriminatory.

  5. Whether the employee is entitled to reinstatement and payment of backwages or separation pay.

  6. Whether the petitioner was dismissed without just cause.

RULING:

  1. The acts of the employee do not constitute immorality. The determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral should be made in accordance with the prevailing norms of conduct, which are public and secular. The fact that the conduct does not conform to the traditional moral views of a sectarian institution is not sufficient reason to qualify such act as immoral unless it also does not conform to public and secular standards. There must also be substantial evidence to establish that the specific conduct is considered disgraceful or immoral. In this case, the employee and her boyfriend were both single and had no legal impediment to marry at the time the alleged immoral conduct was committed. They eventually married, which further diminishes the argument of immorality.

  2. There is no proof that the acts of the employee scandalized the Brent community. The employer admitted that it only became aware of the pregnancy when it became manifest. There was no evidence presented to show that the employee flaunted her premarital relations or that it was carried out under scandalous or vulgar circumstances.

  3. The employer cannot require the employee to subsequently contract marriage in order to be reinstated.

  4. The employer's condition is coercive, oppressive, and discriminatory.

  5. The employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of backwages, or alternatively, separation pay.

  6. The Court finds that the petitioner was dismissed without just cause.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful or immoral involves a two-step process: consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct and assessment of these circumstances vis-a-vis the prevailing norms of conduct.

  • The prevailing norms of conduct refer to those conducts that are proscribed because they are detrimental to the conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society.

  • The standard of morality with which an act should be gauged is public and secular, not religious.

  • The fact that a particular act does not conform to the traditional moral views of a sectarian institution is not sufficient reason to qualify such act as immoral unless it also does not conform to public and secular standards.

  • There must be substantial evidence to establish that the specific conduct is considered disgraceful or immoral.

  • Unmarried mothers cannot be penalized for their sexual conduct or consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons, unless it violates a fundamental state policy.

  • The management prerogative allows an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, but it should not be used to impose arbitrary and discriminatory conditions.

  • It is unlawful to require as a condition of employment that a woman employee shall not get married or to discriminate against her by reason of her marriage.

  • Women are protected against discrimination in matters relating to marriage and family relations, including the right to choose freely a spouse and to enter into marriage with their free and full consent.

  • A marriage or no-marriage qualification may be justified as a bona fide occupational qualification, but the employer must prove that it is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job and that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.

  • In cases of illegal dismissal, the employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and payment of backwages. If reinstatement is not viable, separation pay should be awarded as an alternative.

  • The computation of backwages is reckoned from the date of illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement or until the finality of the decision ordering separation pay.

  • The constitutional policy of providing full protection to labor is not intended to oppress or destroy management.

  • A finding of illegal dismissal, by itself, does not establish bad faith to entitle an employee to moral damages.

  • Absent clear and convincing evidence showing that the dismissal had been carried out in an arbitrary, capricious, and malicious manner, moral and exemplary damages cannot be awarded.