Case Summary (G.R. No. 187417)
Labor Arbiter and NLRC Rulings
The Labor Arbiter found the suspension amounted to constructive dismissal but nonetheless upheld just cause—premarital sexual relations resulting in pregnancy—and awarded only 13th-month pay. The NLRC affirmed.
Dismissal of Certiorari Petition by the Court of Appeals
The CA dismissed Cadiz’s Rule 65 petition outright for technical defects: incomplete statement of material dates, failure to attach registry receipts, and omission of place of issue of counsel’s PTR/IBP receipts.
Relaxation of Technical Requirements
The SC held that (a) the material date of receipt of the denial of reconsideration was properly alleged; (b) registry-receipt absence, though not mere surplusage, should not bar relief where service was shown; and (c) place of issuance of PTR/IBP receipts was indicated elsewhere, constituting substantial compliance.
Immorality Requirement Analyzed
Applying the two-step test from Leus v. St. Scholastica’s College, the SC ruled that premarital pregnancy per se does not violate public and secular morality. Both parties were unmarried with no impediment, later solemnized their marriage, and there was no evidence of scandal or societal disapproval. Brent’s policy manuals did not define immorality in secular terms, and sectarian standards cannot be imposed absent an express, binding policy.
Prohibition of Condition to Marry
The SC found Brent’s condition that Cadiz marry before reinstatement unlawful under Labor Code Art. 136 (stipulation against marriage), the Constitution’s guarantee of equality, and the Magna Carta of Women (RA 9710). Such a requirement is coercive, discriminatory, and bears no relation to job performance.
Constitutional Rights to Liberty and Privacy
Under the 1987 Constitution, due process and equal protection encompass personal autonomy and privacy, including the right to choose marriage and to bear or rear a child. State or private-employe
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 187417)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 assails CA Resolutions dated July 22, 2008 and February 24, 2009 in CA-G.R. SP No. 02373-MIN
- CA dismissed Cadiz’s Rule 65 petition for:
• incomplete statement of material dates
• failure to attach registry receipts
• failure to indicate place of issue of counsel’s PTR and IBP receipts - Petition elevated after: LA decision (Apr 12, 2007) and NLRC Resolutions (Dec 10, 2007; Feb 29, 2008) denied relief; CA dismissed on technical grounds
Antecedent Facts
- Cadiz employed as Human Resource Officer of Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc.
- Indefinite suspension in 2006 for “Unprofessionalism and Unethical Behavior Resulting to Unwed Pregnancy”
- Suspension conditioned on Cadiz’s marriage to her boyfriend
- Cadiz filed before LA complaint for Unfair Labor Practice, Constructive Dismissal, Non-Payment of Wages and Damages, with prayer for reinstatement
Issues Presented
- Whether NLRC gravely abused discretion by upholding dismissal for out-of-wedlock pregnancy
- Whether NLRC abused discretion in affirming indefinite suspension requiring marriage before reinstatement
- Whether NLRC abused discretion in denying backwages, allowances, sick leave pay, maternity pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees
- Whether CA misapplied material-date rule, resulting in miscarriage of justice by dismissing petition
Ruling of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
- LA: Indefinite suspension tantamount to constructive dismissal but just cause existed—premarital sexual relations causing out-of-wedlock pregnancy
- LA: Cadiz’s role as HR Officer magnified misconduct; suspension valid until marriage; awarded only 13th-month pay (₱7,970.11)
- NLRC: Affirmed LA decision; denied motion for reconsideration; found no illegal dismissal
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
- Dismissed Cadiz’s petition outright for procedural defects
- Denied reconsideration; held NLRC committed no grave abuse of discretion
- Did not reach merits due to