7/24/2019 27.) Santos

1/3

Santos, Jr. vs. NLRCGRN 115795, March 6, 1998

J. Romero

Facts: Petitioner, a married man, was employed as a teacher bythe private respondent Hagonoy Institute Inc. from June 1!" until hisdismissal on June 1, 11. #i$ewise wor$ing as a teacher for the privaterespondent was %rs. &rlene '. %artin, also married. In the course of theiremployment, the couple fell in love. 'hereafter, rumors regarding thecouple(s relationship spread, especially among the faculty members andschool o)cials.

*oncerned about the rumors, on +ovember , 1", the privaterespondent advised %rs. %artin to ta$e a leave of absence which sheignored, as she continued to report for wor$. *onse-uently, on +ovember ,

1", she was barred from reporting for wor$ and was not allowed to enterthe private respondent(s premises, eectively dismissing her from heremployment.

In view of her termination from the service, on +ovember 1, 1",%rs. %artin /led a case for illegal dismissal before the +#0* 0egional&rbitration ranch +o. III, 2an Fernando, Pampanga against the privaterespondent. &fter the parties had submitted their respective evidence andposition paper, the #abor &rbiter rendered a decision dismissing thecomplaint for utter lac$ of merit.

3n appeal, the +#0* reversed the labor arbiter(s ruling, therebyordering respondent to pay complainant her bac$4wages and separation pay.'he reversal was anchored on the failure by the private respondent, indismissing %rs. %artin, to accord her the necessary procedural due process.

%eanwhile, private respondent set up a committee to investigate theveracity of the rumors. &fter two wee$s of in-uiry, the committee renderedits report con/rming the illicit relationship between the petitioner and %rs.%artin.

In view of the *ommittee(s /nding, on 5ecember 1, 1", petitioner

was charged administratively for immortality and was re-uired to present hisside on the controversy. Five months later or in %ay 11, petitioner wasinformed by the private respondent(s oard of 5irectors of his dismissaleective June 1, 11. 6nable to accept such verdict, petitioner /led acomplaint for illegal dismissal on &ugust 17, 11 before the +#0* 0egional&rbitration ranch +o. III, 2an Fernando, Pampanga. &fter a full blown trialwas conducted, the #abor &rbiter dismissed the petitioner(s complaint.

7/24/2019 27.) Santos

2/3

In an eort to see$ the reversal of the labor arbiters( decision,petitioner /led an appeal before the +#0*, which, however, did not /nd anysubstantial reason to overturn the labor arbiter(s ruling. 'hus, in a decisiondated +ovember 7, 1, the +#0* dismissed the appeal for lac$ of merit.

Petitioner(s motion for reconsideration suered the same fate. 'hus,this petition for certiorari.

Issue: 8hether the illicit relationship between the two teacherscould be considered immoral as to constitute 9ust cause to terminate anemployee under &rticle 7!7 of the #abor *ode.

0uling: In order to constitute a valid dismissal, two re-uisites must

concur: a; the dismissal must be for any of the causes eross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties=

c; Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in himby his employer or duly authori?ed representative=

d; *ommission of a crime or oense by the employee against theperson of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his dulyauthori?e representative= and

e; 3ther causes analogous to the foregoing.

%oreover, it is provided by the %anual of 0egulations for Private

2chools that the employment of school personnels, including faculty, may beterminated for disgraceful or immoral conduct, among others.

3n the outset, it must be stressed that to constitute immorality, thecircumstances of each particular case must be holistically considered andevaluated in light of the prevailing norms of conduct and applicable laws.&merican 9urisprudence has de/ned immorality as a course of conduct whichoends the morals of the community and is a bad e

7/24/2019 27.) Santos

3/3

whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and to elevate, the sameincluding se