PREGNANCY OUT OF WEDLOCK

LEUS v. ST. CHRISTINE JOY ZAIDA R. INOCENTE v.

SCHOLASTICA’S CAPIN-CADIZ v.
COLLEGE WESTGROVE BRENT HOSPITAL
AND/OR SR. EDNA AND COLLEGES,
QUIAMBAO, OSB INC.
G.R. No. 187226, January 28, G.R. No. 187417,
2015, (REYES, J.) February 24, 2016,
(REYES, J.)
As to “The petitioner’s pregnancy “The foregoing
immorality of out of wedlock is not a circumstances,
pregnancy out disgraceful or immoral however, do not
of wedlock conduct since she and the readily equate to
father of her child have no disgraceful and
impediment to marry each immoral conduct.
other.” 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.”
As to the “The totality of the “The totality of the
totality of circumstances surrounding circumstances of this
circumstances the conduct alleged to be case does not justify
disgraceful or immoral must the conclusion that
be assessed against the Cadiz committed acts
prevailing norms of of immorality. Similar
conduct.” to Leus, Cadiz and her
boyfriend were both
“…the determination of single and had no legal
whether a conduct is impediment to marry at
disgraceful or immoral the time she committed
involves a two-step process: the alleged immoral
first, a consideration of the conduct. In fact, they
totality of the circumstances eventually married on
ST. VINCENT
FOUNDATION FOR
CHILDREN AND
AGING,
INC./VERONICA
MENGUITO
G.R. No. 202621, June 22,
2016, (BRION, J.)
“In this case, we note that
both Zaida and Marlon at all
times had no impediments to
marry each other. They were
adults who met at work,
dated, fell in love and became
sweethearts. The intimate
sexual relations between
them were consensual,
borne by their love for one
another and which they
engaged in discreetly and
in strict privacy. They
continued their relationship
even after Marlon left St.
Vincent in 2008. They took
their marriage vows soon
after Zaida recovered from
her miscarriage, thus
validating their union in the
eyes of both men and God.”
“The totality of the
attendant circumstances
must be considered in
determining whether an
employee's conduct is
immoral.”
“In other words, it is 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
 surrounding the conduct; and April 15, 2008.” whether the conduct is
second, an assessment of the disgraceful or immoral. The
said circumstances vis-à-vis the determination of whether a
prevailing norms of conduct, particular conduct is immoral
i.e., what the society generally involves: (1) a consideration
considers moral and of the totality of the
respectable.” 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.”
As to the “Public and secular morality “Jurisprudence has “In dismissal situations, the
standard of should determine the already set the sufficiency of a conduct
morality used prevailing norms of conduct, standard of morality claimed to be immoral
not religious morality.” with which an act must be judged based on
should be gauged - it secular, not religious
is public and secular, standards.”
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.”
As to sexual “To stress, pre-marital sexual “…the Court already “We thus reiterate that mere
relations relations between two stressed in Leus that private sexual relations
between consenting adults who have ‘premarital sexual between two unmarried
consenting no impediment to marry relations between two and consenting adults, even
adults each other, and, consenting adults who if the relations result in
consequently, conceiving a have no impediment pregnancy or miscarriage
child out of wedlock, to marry each other, out of wedlock and without
gauged from a purely public and, consequently, more, are not enough to
and secular view of morality, conceiving a child out warrant liability for illicit
does not amount to a of wedlock, gauged behavior. The voluntary
disgraceful or immoral from a purely public intimacy between two
conduct under Section 94(e) and secular view of unmarried adults, where both
of the 1992 MRPS.” morality, does not are not under any impediment
amount to a to marry, where no deceit
disgraceful or exists, and which was done in
immoral conduct under complete privacy, is neither
Section 94(e) of the criminal nor so unprincipled
1992 MRPS.’” as to warrant disciplinary
action.”

TERMINATION DUE TO PREGNANCY

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES v. REBESENCIO G.R. No. 198587, Jan. 14, 2015 (LEONEN, J.)

We emphasize the glaringly discriminatory nature of Saudia's policy. As argued by respondents, Saudia's
policy entails the termination of employment of flight attendants who become pregnant. At the risk of stating
the obvious, pregnancy is an occurrence that pertains specifically to women. Saudia's policy excludes from
and restricts employment on the basis of no other consideration but sex.

We do not lose sight of the reality that pregnancy does present physical limitations that may render difficult
the performance of functions associated with being a flight attendant. Nevertheless, it would be the height
of iniquity to view pregnancy as a disability so permanent and immutable that, it must entail the
termination of one's employment. It is clear to us that any individual, regardless of gender, may be subject
to exigencies that limit the performance of functions. However, we fail to appreciate how pregnancy
could be such an impairing occurrence that it leaves no other recourse but the complete termination
of the means through which a woman earns a living.

Stripped of all unnecessary complexities, respondents were dismissed for no other reason than simply
that they were pregnant. This is as wanton, oppressive, and tainted with bad faith as any reason for
termination of employment can be. This is no ordinary case of illegal dismissal. This is a case of
manifest gender discrimination. It is an affront not only to our statutes and policies on employees' security
of tenure, but more so, to the Constitution's dictum of fundamental equality between men and women.