In Part I, an employee was dismissed for marrying an employee of a competitor company. Will it end the same way here?

Jose was a teacher in a private school. He was married. Also employed by the same school was Arlene, another teacher. She, too, was married.

During their years of working together, Jose and Arlene fell in love. Soon, rumors about their relationship spread among the faculty and school officials. Concerned by the reports, the school conducted an investigation.

The inquiry confirmed what many in the school already suspected: Jose and Arlene were engaged in an extra-marital affair.

Arlene was first dismissed. Later, after a separate investigation, the school also terminated Jose’s employment on the ground of immorality.

Jose challenged his dismissal.

Do you think he’ll be as successful as the non-teaching assistant who got pregnant outside of marriage? Or just like the teacher who got pregnant outside of marriage?

He argued that the school failed to prove the alleged affair and that there was insufficient evidence to justify his termination. He also pointed out that Arlene had previously won an illegal dismissal case against the school.

Was the dismissal valid?

Yes.

The Supreme Court held that while immorality is not defined by a rigid formula, the circumstances of each case must be examined in light of prevailing social norms, applicable laws, and the employee’s position.

In Jose’s case, the Court emphasized that he was not merely an ordinary employee. He was a teacher.

Teachers occupy a special place in society. They serve as role models to their students and exercise influence during the students’ formative years. Because of this, teachers are held to standards of conduct higher than those expected of ordinary citizens. According to the Court, a teacher’s behavior, both inside and outside the classroom, must be beyond reproach.

The Court further noted that Jose was a married man involved in a romantic and sexual relationship with another married person. Such conduct was not merely a private matter between consenting adults. It was an extra-marital affair that violated the obligation of fidelity owed to one’s spouse and offended the institution of marriage, which the Constitution and the law recognize as a basic social institution.

For these reasons, the Court ruled that the affair constituted immoral conduct sufficient to justify dismissal.

Santos v. NLRC. G.R. No. 115795 March 6, 1998