Immorality as the Basis of Dismissal: A Legal Guide

In the case of Zaide R. Inocente vs. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc. GR. №202621 decided 22 June 2016 the Supreme Court, speaking through the ponencia of Justice Arturo Brion defined immorality as:

“Immorality pertains to a course of conduct that offends the morals of the community. It connotes conduct or acts that are willful, flagrant or shameless, and that shows indifference to the moral standards of the upright and respectable members of the community.” (emphasis supplied)

Justice Brion also noted that “Notwithstanding this characterization, the term “immorality” still often escapes precise definition; the determination of whether it exists or has taken place depends on the attendant circumstances, prevailing norms of conduct, and applicable laws.”

He also advises that “the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct per se viewed in relation with the conduct generally accepted by society as respectable or moral, which determines whether the conduct is disgraceful or immoral.

The determination of whether a particular conduct is immoral involves:

(1) a consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct; and

(2) an assessment of these circumstances in the light of the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and respectable, and of the applicable laws.

But we need to be cautioned in determining whether the acts complained of constitute “disgraceful and immoral” behavior under our laws, the distinction between public and secular morality on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other hand, should be kept in mind. This distinction as expressed — albeit not exclusively — in the law, on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, is important because the jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality.

The Court also ruled on the concept of “Illicit” relationship saying:

“We thus reiterate that mere private sexual relations between two unmarried and consenting adults, even if the relations result in pregnancy or miscarriage out of wedlock and without more, are not enough to warrant liability for illicit behavior. The voluntary intimacy between two unmarried adults, where both are not under any impediment to marry, where no deceit exists, and which was done in complete privacy, is neither criminal nor so unprincipled as to warrant disciplinary action.” (emphasis supplied)

In yet another decide case — Alilem Credit Cooperative, Inc., vs. Salvador M. Bandiola, JR. (G.R. №173489) 25 February 2013 under the ponencia of Justice Diosdado Peralta, discussing the dismissal of an employee due to immoral conduct stated that:

“While respondent’s act of engaging in extra — marital affairs may be considered personal to him and does not directly affect the performance of his assigned task as bookkeeper, aside from the fact that the act was specifically provided for by petitioner’s Personnel Policy as one of the grounds for termination of employment, said act raised concerns to petitioner as the Board received numerous complaints and petitions from the cooperative members themselves asking for the removal of respondent because of his immoral conduct.” (emphasis supplied)

Here the Court ruled that the dismissal is valid, setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstating the Labor Arbiters decision of a valid dismissal.

In the final note even if Immorality is not found in the enumeration of Just Cause under Article 282 of the Labor Code the Court have ruled that Violation of Company Rules and Regulations[1] is in the nature of Just Cause.

[1] Cases cited in Chan, Joselito, Bar Reviewer on Labor Law , ChanRobles Publishing Company 2014