Supreme Court: Pregnancy out of wedlock not grounds for suspension

MANILA, Philippines —The Supreme Court ruled that premarital sex resulting in pregnancy is not immoral and cannot be used as grounds for suspending an employee.

In an 18-page decision dated July 23, penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual relations between two unmarried adults are not inherently immoral, as there is no law prohibiting such relationships.

The case

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by a grade school teacher against Bohol Christian School and its officials for illegal suspension. The teacher, who was two months pregnant at the time, was verbally suspended by the school's principal.

The principal insisted that the teacher would remain suspended until she married the father of her unborn child.

A few days later, the teacher received a formal notice stating that she was being indefinitely suspended without pay for "immorality," with the suspension to continue until she married her boyfriend.

In response, the teacher filed a complaint for illegal suspension before the Labor Arbiter, who initially ruled in her favor, finding that she had been constructively dismissed by the school.

However, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, stating there was insufficient evidence of constructive dismissal, prompting the teacher to file an appeal before the Court of Appeals.

Although the appellate court did not find evidence of constructive dismissal, it declared the teacher's suspension illegal. This led both the school and the teacher to appeal the case before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, emphasizing that sexual relations between consenting, unmarried adults are not inherently immoral.

The high tribunal further clarified that there is no law prohibiting such relationships, nor do they violate any fundamental state policies enshrined in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court emphasized that, in legal contexts, morality must be based on public and secular standards, rather than religious doctrine.

“Public and secular morality refers to conduct proscribed because they are detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society. Otherwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating public policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals would require conformity to what some might regard as a religious program or agenda,” the court ruling read.

'Suspension is illegal'

The Supreme Court also ruled that the teacher's suspension was illegal.

Citing a previous ruling, the Supreme Court said that pregnancy out of wedlock cannot be deemed "disgraceful and immoral."

“Sexual intercourse between two consenting adults who have no legal impediment to marry, like respondent and her boyfriend, is not deemed as immoral. No law proscribes such, and said conduct does not contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution,” the decision read.

The high court also ruled that the school did not comply with the “procedural due process” as they did not issue a notice before suspending the teacher.

“Suspension from work must be reasonable to meet the constitutional requirement of due process of law. It will be reasonable if it is based on just or authorized causes enumerated in the Labor Code. The employee must also be given notice and the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered,” the court ruling read.

Due to this, the high court ordered the school and its officials to pay jointly and solidarily pay the teacher her back wages and 13th-month pay along with other benefits and attorneys fees.