Love, romance and sex in the workplace

There is nothing wrong with love, there is nothing wrong with romance. But if love and romance culminate into sex, and they are done inside the workplace and/or within office hours, then problems arise. Every person has the absolute freedom to love. But when he or she translates such love into action, then the law may reasonably restrain him from further complications. An employee’s love, romances and sex life are personal to him. His employer has no business interfering with his or her private affairs. But the moment such affairs come in conflict with official functions, then management has the prerogatives to exercise disciplinary action.

Filipinos, they often say, are not only natural romantics. They are also hopelessly passionate lovers and, in today’s increasingly liberal culture, they are easily tempted to become somehow overly licentious in their sexual proclivities. Two days ago, we celebrated Valentine’s Day and from then on until today, and perhaps until tomorrow, the motel and hotel and lodging houses’ occupancy in the whole country continues to experience unusually high levels of occupancy, directly proportionate to rising passions of lovers. Many of these lovers are office mates, superiors and subordinates, peers and even fellow executives, who might be happily married to other persons.

My study and analysis of Supreme Court decisions have given me immense insights into this behavioral phenomenon. In a series of lectures that this columnist regularly gives to HR managers and young lawyers, I have discovered many behavioral patterns where romantic and sexual relationships have come in conflict with the law, especially labor laws. What is involved is normally the collision between the employer’s prerogative to control his employee’s behavior in the work place and during working hours, on the one hand, and the individual rights of corporate lovers, upon the other hand. This is, as the song goes, the same old story, the fight for love and glory. But a kiss is not just a kiss when done publicly between two lovers who are both married, but not to each other.

The Supreme Court usually takes the sides of management when superiors commit sexual harassment against their subordinates. We have come across more than ten cases of such nature. This was this case of a corporate manager who acted as an amorous matchmaker for his two subordinates, to the extent of driving the two young lovers to a motel (DGV vs. NLRC, GR 106341, 02 Sept 1997). A pharma company sales manager lost his job for forcing himself upon a female med rep (RBF vs. D, GR170661, 04 Dec 1991). A municipal assessor was removed dishonorably by the Supreme Court, with forfeiture of all his retirement benefits, a perpetual disqualification from holding public office (GR 169449, 26 Mar 2010).

There was a case of two Bulacan teachers who had an affair despite being both married. They were dismissed for immorality and disgraceful conduct, the Supreme Court approved their dismissal. Teachers are expected to be good behavior models. These lovers were said to have disgraced the teaching profession (JSS Jr vs. NLRC, GR 115795, 06 Mar 1998). A principal in Bohol took a pupil as a lover while his wife is teaching in the same Catholic school. The husband was dismissed for his immoral acts. The wife was also asked to leave for trying to cover up the offensive behavior of his amorous husband. There was a 28-year-old professor who was sentenced to a 20-year imprisonment for seducing and having sexual acts with a 17-year-old virgin student (MJZM vs. People of the Phil, GR 164733, 21 Sept 2007).

But in one case, the High Court found nothing wrong when a 31-year-old female teacher in Bacolod was in love with her 16-year-old pupil. Their May-December romance ended in marriage. The school administration dismissed the teacher. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal. In the colorful language of Justice Florenz Regalado: “The heart has reasons of its own which reason itself does not know.” These two lovers conducted their affair in a most discreet and decent way. Prior to the Family Code, a 16 year old can contract marriage with parental consent. In this case, the boy’s parents approved of the relationship. Above all, they did not commit an immoral act inside the campus, nor during class hours.

Indeed, there is a right way to do the right thing at the right time and in the right place by the right parties. Thus, management cannot reasonably impose any penalty, for no offense was committed.