View full case

ZAIDA R. INOCENTE v. ST. VINCENT FOUNDATION FOR CHILDREN & AGING

FACTS:

The petitioner, Zaida R. Inocente, was employed as a Program Officer by respondent St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc. (St. Vincent), a non-profit foundation supported by the Catholic Foundation for Children and Aging (CFCA). St. Vincent implemented a Non-Fraternization Policy in 2006, which prohibited employees from engaging in consensual romantic or sexual relationships with other employees or volunteers.

Despite the policy, Zaida entered into a romantic relationship with Marlon, who used to work for St. Vincent but had already resigned. Zaida and Marlon eventually got married. However, St. Vincent considered their relationship prior to marriage as a violation of the Non-Fraternization Policy.

After conducting an investigation, St. Vincent issued a notice of termination to Zaida, stating that her actions amounted to immorality, gross misconduct, and violation of the Code of Conduct. Zaida filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that her termination was unjust and discriminatory.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in favor of St. Vincent, finding that Zaida's relationship with Marlon constituted immoral conduct and serious misconduct, warranting her dismissal. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upheld the LA's decision, emphasizing that Zaida's actions set a bad example and prejudiced the interests of St. Vincent. The Court of Appeals (CA) also denied Zaida's petition for certiorari, agreeing with the findings of the labor tribunals that her dismissal was valid and not due to her pregnancy.

Dissatisfied with the lower court's decision, Zaida filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA's affirmation of the NLRC's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc.’s (St. Vincent) Non-Fraternization Policy was a valid exercise of management prerogative.

  2. Whether Zaida R. Inocente’s dismissal based on immorality, gross misconduct, and violation of St. Vincent’s Code of Conduct was valid.

  3. Whether due process requirements were observed in the termination of Zaida's employment.

RULING:

  1. On the validity of St. Vincent’s Non-Fraternization Policy:

    • The Supreme Court found that the Non-Fraternization Policy did not absolutely prohibit consensual romantic relationships among employees but only "strongly discouraged" them. Thus, it did not mandate automatic disclosure or sanction relationships, even in the context of supervisory roles, unless the conduct went beyond the usual norms of morality.

  2. On Zaida's dismissal for immorality, gross misconduct, and violation of St. Vincent’s Code of Conduct:

    • The Supreme Court ruled that Zaida’s relationship with Marlon, which continued discreetly even after he left St. Vincent, was not immoral by secular standards and did not violate the Non-Fraternization Policy. There was no sufficient evidence that her conduct was prejudicial to St. Vincent's interests or that she engaged in actions constituting gross misconduct or willful breach of trust and confidence. Consequently, Zaida's dismissal was deemed illegal for lack of valid cause.

  3. On compliance with procedural due process requirements:

    • The Supreme Court held that St. Vincent failed to specify factual details in its charges against Zaida, depriving her of due process. The notices did not provide a clear basis for serious claims like "exerting undue influence," denying her a proper opportunity to refute the charges.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Non-interference with Off-Duty Conduct: Absence of prohibition in management policies means employees cannot be sanctioned for non-compliance if the policy merely "discourages" certain behaviors.

  • Immorality and Misconduct: The assessment of immorality should be based on secular, not religious standards. The totality of circumstances, including societal norms and laws, must be considered.

  • Employment Termination: Employers bear the burden of proving just or authorized causes for dismissal alongside compliance with procedural due process. Without a valid cause, any procedural adherence does not render a dismissal valid.

  • Due Process in Employment: Dismissal notices must clearly state the specific acts constituting the grounds for termination to enable employees to defend themselves properly.

  • Judicial Review of Labor Cases: Supreme Court review under Rule 45 focuses on legal errors without reassessing factual determinations unless there is a manifest grave abuse of discretion from lower tribunals.