MUÑOZ, Clarinda G.

2023-0118 | AUSL

Case Title: Leus vs. St. Scholastica’s College Westgrove

Case Reference: G.R. No. 187226
Promulgation Date: January 08, 2015
Ponente: Reyes, J.

FACTS:
● Cheryll Santos Leus (petitioner) was hired by St. Scholastica's College Westgrove
(SSCW) in Silang Cavite, a Catholic educational institution, as a non-teaching
personnel, engaged in pre-marital sexual relations, got pregnant out of wedlock, married
the father of her child, and was dismissed by SSCW, in that order.
● In May 2001, SSCW hired the petitioner as an Assistant to SSCW’s Director of the Lay
Apostolate and Community Outreach Directorate.
● In 2003, the petitioner and her boyfriend conceived a child out of wedlock.
● Sr. Edna Quiambao (Sr. Quiambao), SSCW’s Directress, advised her to file a
resignation letter effective June 1, 2003.
● On May 28, 2003, Sr. Quiambao formally directed the petitioner to explain in writing
why she should not be dismissed for engaging in pre-marital sexual relations and
getting pregnant as a result - which amounts to serious misconduct and conduct
unbecoming of an employee of a Catholic School
● SSCW follows the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (1992 MRPS) on
the causes for termination of employments; that Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS cites
"disgraceful or immoral conduct" as a ground for dismissal in addition to the just
causes for termination of employment provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code.
● To dismiss her on that sole ground constitutes grave abuse of management
prerogatives.
● Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Regional Arbitration Branch of
the NLRC in Quezon City against SSCW and Sr. Quiambao (respondents
● On June 11, 2003, Sr. Quiambao informed the petitioner that her employment with
SSCW is terminated on the ground of serious misconduct. She stressed that pre-
marital sexual relations between two consenting adults with no impediment to marry,
even if they subsequently married, amounts to immoral conduct.
● Petitioner contends that her pre-marital sexual relations with her boyfriend and her
pregnancy prior to marriage was not disgraceful or immoral conduct sufficient for her
dismissal because she was not a member of the school’s faculty and there is no
evidence that her pregnancy scandalized the school community.

ISSUES:
● Whether the petitioner's conduct constitutes a ground for her dismissal.
● whether the CA committed reversible error in ruling that it is the 1992 MRPS and not
the Labor Code that governs the termination of employment of teaching and non-
teaching personnel of private schools
● WON petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock constitutes a valid ground to terminate her
employment.

RULING:
● Labor Arbiter - LA found that there was a valid ground for the petitioner’s dismissal; that
her pregnancy out of wedlock is considered as a "disgraceful and immoral conduct."; as
an employee of a Catholic educational institution, the petitioner is expected to live up to
the Catholic values taught by SSCW to its students
● NLRC - affirmed the LA Decision dated February 28, 2006. The NLRC pointed out that
the termination of the employment of the personnel of private schools is governed by the
 MUÑOZ, Clarinda G.
2023-0118 | AUSL

1992 MRPS; that Section 94(e) thereof cites "disgraceful or immoral conduct" as a just
cause for dismissal, in addition to the grounds for termination of employment provided
for under Article 282 of the Labor Code. The NLRC held that the petitioner’s pregnancy
out of wedlock is a "disgraceful or immoral conduct" within the contemplation of Section
94(e) of the 1992 MRPS and, thus, SSCW had a valid reason to terminate her
employment.
● CA - It is a principle of statutory construction that where there are two statutes that apply
to a particular case, that which was specially intended for the said case must prevail.
ccordingly, the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools followed by it must prevail
over the Labor Code, a general statute. The Manual constitutes the private schools’
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 or the Education Act
of 1982.
Under Section 94 (e) of the [MRPS], and even under Article 282 (serious misconduct) of
the Labor Code, "disgraceful and immoral conduct" is a basis for termination of
employment.
● Supreme Court:
○ Applicability of the 1992 MRPS -
■ Estoppel - failed to raise the argument against the validity of the 1992
MRPS, and was raised for the first time in the instant petition for review
"It is well established that issues raised for the first time on appeal and
not raised in the proceedings in the lower court are barred by estoppel.
■ It is still within the authority of the Secretary of Education to issue a rule,
which provides for the dismissal of teaching and non-teaching personnel
of private schools based on their incompetence, inefficiency, or some
other disqualification.

○ Validity of the Petitioner’s Dismissal

■ WON pregnancy out of wedlock by an employee of a catholic educational
institution is a cause for the termination of her employment
■ Whether the same constitutes a valid ground for dismissal pursuant to
Section 94(e) of the 1992 MRPS.
■ Grave Abuse of Discretion exists where an act of a court or tribunal is
performed with a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent
to lack of jurisdiction. A decision that is not supported by substantial
evidence is definitely a decision tainted with grave abuse of discretion
■ Sec. 94. Causes of Terminating Employment – In addition to the just
causes enumerated in the Labor Code, the employment of school
personnel, including faculty, may be terminated for any of the following
causes:

e. Disgraceful or immoral conduct;

■ The Court finds no substantial evidence to support the aforementioned

conclusion arrived at by the labor tribunals. The fact of the petitioner’s
pregnancy out of wedlock, without more, is not enough to characterize the
petitioner’s conduct as disgraceful or immoral.

■ In Chua-Qua v. Clave, the Court stressed that to constitute immorality,

the circumstances of each particular case must be holistically
considered and evaluated in light of the prevailing norms of
conductand applicable laws. Otherwise stated, it is not the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the conduct per se that determines whether
the same is disgraceful or immoral, but the conduct that is generally
accepted by society as respectable or moral. If the conduct does not
conform to what society generally views as respectable or moral, then the
 MUÑOZ, Clarinda G.
2023-0118 | AUSL

conduct is considered as disgraceful or immoral. Tersely put, substantial

evidence must be presented, which would establish that a particular
conduct, viewed in light of the prevailing norms of conduct, is considered
disgraceful or immoral.

■ Thus, the determination of whether a conduct is disgraceful or

immoral involves a two-step process:
1. a consideration of the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the conduct;
2. an assessment of the said circumstances vis-à-vis the
prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society
generally considers moral and respectable.

● Public and secular morality should determine the prevailing norms of conduct,
not religious morality.
○ The Court’s ratiocination in Estrada v. Escritor is instructive.
○ In Estrada, an administrative case against a court interpreter charged with
disgraceful and immoral conduct, the Court stressed that in determining whether
a particular conduct can be considered as disgraceful and immoral, the
distinction between public and secular morality on the one hand, and
religious morality, on the other, should be kept in mind. That the distinction
between public and secular morality and religious morality is important because
the jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality
○ "Religious teachings as expressed in public debate may influence the civil public
order but public moral disputes may be resolved only on grounds articulable in
secular terms."
○ 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 religious programs or agenda.The non-believers
would therefore be compelled to conform to a standard of conduct buttressed by
a religious belief, i.e., to a "compelled religion," anathema to religious freedom.

● The petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock is not a disgraceful or immoral conduct

since she and the father of her child have no impediment to marry each other.
● There is no substantial evidence to prove that the petitioner’s pregnancy out of wedlock
caused grave scandal to SSCW and its students.
○ The petitioner is only a non-teaching personnel; her interaction with SSCW’s
students is very limited. Itis thus quite impossible that her pregnancy out of
wedlock caused such a grave scandal, as claimed by SSCW, as to warranther
dismissal.
● The petitioner’s dismissal is not a valid exercise of SSCW’s management
prerogative.
○ The exercise of management prerogative, however, is not absolute as it must be
exercised in good faith and with due regard to the rights of labor." Management
cannot exercise its prerogative in a cruel, repressive, or despotic manner