Case Summary (G.R. No. 202621)
Factual Antecedents
Zaida joined St. Vincent in 2000 as Program Assistant, promoted in 2001 to Program Officer with supervisory duties over program implementation, staff training, policy formulation, budgeting and reporting. In 2002 she began a discreet romantic relationship with co-employee Marlon Inocente, who resigned in July 2008.
Adoption of Non-Fraternization Policy
In September 2006 St. Vincent formally adopted CFCA Policy 4.2.2.3, “Non-Fraternization Policy,” which “strongly discourages” employees in supervisory roles from engaging in consensual romantic or sexual relationships with colleagues or volunteers to avoid moral impropriety and workplace conflicts.
Personal Circumstances and Medical Leave
February 19 and March 31, 2009, Zaida suffered a miscarriage and an ectopic pregnancy, respectively, requiring hospitalization and surgery. She informed management and received verbal approval for medical leave through April 21, 2009.
Notice to Explain and Termination
On May 14, 2009, Respondents issued a Show-Cause Letter accusing Zaida of immorality, gross misconduct, violation of Code of Conduct provisions (immoral acts, undue influence, defiance of authority, offense to Christian moral standards) and non-disclosure of her relationship. After Zaida’s written defense, St. Vincent terminated her employment by letter dated May 30, 2009.
Labor Tribunal Rulings
The Labor Arbiter (Nov. 27, 2009) and the NLRC (Oct. 28, 2010; Jan. 11, 2011 resolution) upheld the dismissal as a valid exercise of management prerogative, finding dishonesty, willful breach of trust and serious misconduct. The Court of Appeals (Feb. 27, 2012 decision; July 11, 2012 resolution) likewise denied certiorari relief, affirming that Zaida’s undisclosed intimate relationship violated both the Policy and St. Vincent’s Christian values.
Petition Before the Supreme Court
Zaida invoked Rule 45, arguing that the Non-Fraternization Policy was an unreasonable management prerogative infringing constitutional rights, that her conduct was private and pre-dated the Policy, and that her dismissal violated substantive and procedural due process, the Labor Code’s anti-discrimination provisions (Article 137[2]), and the Magna Carta of Women.
Respondents’ Opposition
Respondents contended the petition raised factual issues barred under Rule 45 and renewed that the dismissal was justified by immorality, serious misconduct and willful breach of trust—all valid causes under Articles 282 and 277 of the Labor Code—and that pregnancy played no role in the decision.
Rule 45 Review Scope
Under Rule 45, the Supreme Court examines legal errors by the CA in determining whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion. Factual findings are generally conclusive unless tainted by arbitrariness, misapprehension of facts or irrelevant considerations.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework
Because the decision date is June 22, 2016, the 1987 Constitution applies. Article XIII, Section 3 imposes on employers the burden to prove just causes for dismissal and to comply with due process. The Labor Code (Articles 282–284; procedural requirements under Article 277 and its IRR) enumerates valid grounds and mandates written notices and a hearing opportunity.
Validity of Dismissal—Just Causes
Respondents based dismissal on: (1) immoral out-of-wedlock relationship; (2) violating the Non-Fraternization Policy by non-disclosure; and (3) breach of Code of Conduct (immorality, undue influence, defiance of authority). The tribunals characterized these as serious misconduct and willful breach of trust.
Immorality and Prejudice to Interests
“Immorality” under secular standards requires willful, shameless conduct offensive to community morals. Zaida’s consensual, discreet relationship with a non-impeded adult partner, maintained in privacy and culminating in marriage, did not offend secular moral norms nor contravene any law. Respondents failed to show any prejudice to St. Vincent’s interests arising from that relationship.
Non-Fraternization Policy Interpretation
The Policy merely “strongly discourages” consensual relationships for supervisory employees; it neither prohibits them nor mandates disclosure. “Discourage” implies disapproval, not a binding prohibition. Absent any showing of abuse of supervisory authority or tangible harm, Zaida did not violate the Policy by maintaining a private relationship.
Code of Conduct Violations
Allegations of immoral or indecent acts, undue influence and defiance rest on the und
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 202621)
Procedural History
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 filed by Zaida R. Inocente after CA denied her Rule 65 petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 118576.
- CA’s February 27, 2012 decision and July 11, 2012 resolution affirmed NLRC’s October 28, 2010 decision, which in turn affirmed the Labor Arbiter’s November 27, 2009 dismissal of Inocente’s illegal dismissal complaint.
- Inocente sought reinstatement, backwages, damages; LA, NLRC, and CA ruled against her.
Factual Antecedents
- St. Vincent Foundation: non-stock, non-profit, CFCA-supported, evangelizes Christian values.
- Inocente hired 2000 as Program Assistant; promoted 2001 to Program Officer (oversaw programs, policies, budgets, staff).
- CFCA Non-Fraternization Policy adopted September 2006: “strongly discourage[d] from engaging in consensual romantic or sexual relationships” among employees/volunteers.
- Inocente and Marlon D. Inocente began discreet relationship in 2002; Marlon resigned July 2008; they married June 23, 2009.
- February–April 2009: Inocente suffered miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy; disclosed condition and leave to management.
- May 2009: St. Vincent charged her with violating Non-Fraternization Policy and Code of Conduct; May 30, 2009 termination for immorality, gross misconduct, Code violations.
Labor Tribunal Proceedings
- Labor Arbiter (Nov 27, 2009): dismissed complaint; found dishonesty, breach of trust, valid two-notice due process.
- NLRC (Oct 28, 2010): affirmed LA; added that relationship prejudiced St. Vincent’s interests, justified serious misconduct.
- NLRC denied reconsideration (Jan 11, 2011); Inocente filed Rule 65 petition before CA.
- CA (Feb 27, 2012; July 11, 2012): denied petition; upheld dismissal as valid, not due to pregnancy.
Petitioner's Arguments
- Non-Fraternization Policy unreasonable, invalid exercise of management prerogative; infringes personal rights beyond workplace.
- Relationship outside work; Marlon no longer employee since 2008; private and consensual—beyond legitimate business interest.
- Policy only “discourages,” does not prohibit or require disclosure; no proof of prejudice or loss