Maria was a program assistant for St. Anne Foundation, a Catholic non-profit engaged in providing assistance to children. She met Pedro at the foundation. Maria and Pedro became close and soon became romantically involved with each other.

Five years later, St. Anne adopted a Non-Fraternization Policy which reads:

While St. Anne does not wish to interfere with the off-duty and personal conduct of its employees, to prevent unwarranted sexual harassment claims, uncomfortable working relationships, morale problems among other employees, and even the appearance of impropriety, employees who direct and coordinate the work of others are strongly discouraged from engaging in consensual romantic or sexual relationships with any employee or volunteer of St. Anne.

One day, Maria was rushed to the hospital on severe abdominal pain. It was found that she had a miscarriage. Months later, she was again rushed to the hospital for ectopic pregnancy.

Maria then received a notice to explain why she should not be disciplined for violating the non-fraternization policy. She said their relationship begane long before the policy, and that there is nothing immoral with what they do because they in fact intend to get married.

St. Anne terminated Maria’s employment.

Was St. Anne correct?

No. 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.

In this case, we note that both Maria and Pedro 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 Pedro left St. Vincent in 2008. They took their marriage vows soon after Maria recovered from her miscarriage, thus validating their union in the eyes of both men and God.

All these circumstances show the sincerity and honesty of the relationship between Maria and Pedro. They also show their genuine regard and love for one another – a natural human emotion that is neither shameless, callous, nor offensive to the opinion of the upright and respectable members of the secular community. While their actions might not have strictly conformed with the beliefs, ways, and mores of St. Anne – which is governed largely by religious morality – or with the personal views of its officials, these actions are not prohibited under any law nor are they contrary to conduct generally accepted by society as respectable or moral.

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.

Inocente v. St. Vincent Foundation. G.R. No. 202621, June 22, 2016.