Ground for termination should be clearly defined

DearPAOL Ishavin“premaritalsexand“ettin“pre“nantasares”ltofthatpremarital sexa“ro”ndforterminatin“aprivate employee?Mysisterhasbeenveryprivate abo”therrelationshipwithherboyfriend offive years.Sherecentlyfoundoutthat she is pregnant. She is worried that her employermightterminateherbecauseof her pregnancy, as it is indicated in their companypolicythatimmoralconductis agroundfortermination.

Mayen

Dear Mayen,

Company rules and policies are normally set up in order to facilitate order within an organization or company. However, the provisions indicated in such rules and poliCIES MUST BE CLEAR AND DEfiNITE SO AS TO AVOID ambiguity and confusion. This is especially true for those rules and policies which impose disciplinary actions to employees, like suspensions or terminations.

It would be prudent on the part of your sister to carefully review the provisions of the policies of their company, particularly as to what “immoral conduct” is as a ground FOR TERMINATION. IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY DEfiNED or it should expressly provide that premarital sex and/or pregnancy as a result of premarital sex is a ground for termination or such other circumstances as would comprise immoralconduct, and her circumstances SHOULD FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE DEfiNITION provided in the policies so as to validate dismissal from employment. If “immoral conduct” as a ground for termination is NOT CLEARLY DEfiNED OR HER CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT COME WITHIN THE DEfiNITION PROVIDED IN the policy, then she may not be terminated on that basis. This is in line with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Cadiz vs.BrentHospitalandColleges,Inc. (GR 187417, Feb. 24, 2016, Ponente: Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes), wherein the Supreme Court found that the petitioner was dismissed without just cause, for one, because the defendant’s policy on termination on the ground of immoral conduct was NOT DEfiNED:

“In this case, the surrounding facts leading to Cadiz’s dismissal are straightforward - she was employed as a human resources OFfiCER IN AN EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL INstitution of the Episcopal Church of the Philippines; she and her boyfriend at that time were both single; they engaged in premarital sexual relations, which resulted into pregnancy. x x x

“The foregoing circumstances, however, do not readily equate to disgraceful and immoral conduct. Brent’s Policy Manual and Employee’s Manual of Policies do NOT DEfiNE WHAT CONSTITUTES IMMORALITY; IT simply stated immorality as a ground for disciplinary action. Instead, Brent erroneously relied on the standard dictionary DEfiNITION OF FORNICATION AS A FORM OF ILLICIT relation and proceeded to conclude that CADIZ’S ACTS FELL UNDER SUCH CLASSIfiCATION, thus constituting immorality.

“Jurisprudence has already set the standard of morality with which an act should be gauged — it is public and secular, not religious. Whether a conduct is considered disgraceful or immoral should be made in accordance with the prevailing norms of conduct, which, as stated in Leus, refer to those conducts which are proscribed because they are detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human

society. The fact that a particular act does not conform to the traditional moral views of a CERTAIN SECTARIAN INSTITUTION IS NOT SUFfiCIENT reason to qualify such act as immoral unless it, likewise, does not conform to public and secular standards. More importantly, there must be substantial evidence to establish that premarital sexual relations and pregnancy out of wedlock is considered disgraceful or immoral.”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.