G.R. No. 252124 - Mabao vs. Bohol Wisdom School

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252124)

Employment and Allegations — Respondent’s Account

Mabao began employment on June 7, 2007, attained regular status in 2010, and served as Grade 1 and Grade 2 adviser. She alleged diligent performance and no prior infractions. She became two months pregnant and informed school officials on September 21, 2016. She was verbally told on September 22, 2016 not to report to classes until she could show documents proving she was married to the father of her child. On September 27, 2016 she received a Disciplinary Form and a Letter stating an indefinite suspension without pay “until legally married.”

Employer’s Account and Administrative Actions

BWS averred that Mabao admitted to a premarital pregnancy and had been in the process of securing a marriage license; parties agreed that she would be suspended until her marriage to avoid students’ questions. BWS issued a Disciplinary Form describing the grounds (“pre-marital relationship which lead you getting pregnant before marriage”) and a Letter explaining findings of immorality and imposing “indefinite suspension until legally married.” After learning of Mabao’s marriage (October 5, 2016), BWS sent three return-to-work notices (October 7, November 3, November 22/28, 2016); Mabao refused or did not accept delivery in several instances.

Procedural Posture and Claims Filed

Mabao filed a complaint on October 5, 2016 with the NLRC alleging illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, and several monetary claims (backwages, separation pay, 13th month, allowances, damages, attorney’s fees, certificate of employment). The Labor Arbiter found constructive dismissal and awarded monetary relief. BWS appealed to the NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter, deleted monetary awards, and found no evidence of constructive dismissal. Mabao sought relief from the Court of Appeals via certiorari; the CA held there was no constructive dismissal but found the suspension illegal and awarded pro rata benefits and attorney’s fees. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition.

Labor Arbiter’s Decision

The Labor Arbiter (LA) concluded that Mabao was constructively dismissed and ordered backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, rice allowance, Christmas cash gift, and attorney’s fees totaling PHP 320,678.19. The LA’s finding was based on the view that the suspension amounted to dismissal.

NLRC Ruling and Rationale

The NLRC granted BWS’s appeal, reversed the LA, and deleted the monetary award. The NLRC found no overt act or evidence showing the suspension amounted to dismissal; it emphasized BWS’s intention to accept Mabao back after marriage. The NLRC distinguished Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital, noting that here the couple already planned to marry and did marry shortly after Mabao notified the school.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA partly granted Mabao’s certiorari petition: it affirmed absence of constructive dismissal but ruled the suspension illegal. The CA held that (1) the indefinite suspension was intended by BWS to end upon the employee’s marriage, not as a dismissal; (2) suspension premised on an employee’s premarital sexual relations and pregnancy out of wedlock was illegal because such conduct was not necessarily immoral under prevailing public and secular norms; and (3) procedural due process was violated because the school failed to give an initial written notice to explain the specific grounds and allow a written explanation. The CA awarded backwages from September 22 to October 7, 2016, and pro rata benefits accruing until November 25, 2016 (which it considered the last day of employment), plus 10% attorney’s fees and a certificate of employment.

Supreme Court Standard on Morality Applied

The Supreme Court reiterated that the law’s standard of morality is public and secular, not religious. Conduct is immoral under the law only if it contravenes prevailing norms that protect conditions essential to societal existence and progress. The Court cited precedents (e.g., Leus, Inocente) holding that consensual sexual relations between adults with no legal impediment to marry and resulting pregnancy are not, per se, disgraceful or immoral in the secular-legal sense. Applying this standard, the Court found Mabao’s premarital intercourse and pregnancy did not meet the threshold of public and secular immorality.

Supreme Court Finding on Procedural Due Process

The Court held that procedural due process requires both substantive justification and procedural safeguards (notice and opportunity to be heard). Here, the Administrative Team had already decided to suspend Mabao prior to formally hearing her, and no written initial notice to explain was issued before the imposition of suspension. Consequently, BWS could not claim substantial compliance with due process despite oral meetings and a subsequent written reduction of the suspension because the decision was effectively pre-determined.

Supreme Court Conclusion on Illegality of Suspension

Because premarital sexual relations and pregnancy out of wedlock were not established as “disgraceful or immoral” under secular public standards, and because BWS failed to comply with procedural due process (no initial written notice and pre-decision), the Court affirmed that Mabao’s suspension was illegal and without basis.

Abandonment and Termination of Employment — Court’s Clarification

While affirming illegality of the suspension, the Supreme Court modified the CA’s finding as to the termination date. The Court found that Mabao manifested an intention to sever employment by letter dated November 9, 2016, responding to the First Return-to-Work Notice and explicitly stating she “could no longer go back to work for the school” and attaching her NLRC complaint. Coupled with her failure to return to work despite multiple return-to-work notices and other facts (filing for separation pay, marriage on October 5, 2016, and non-return after that date), the Court concluded Mabao abandoned her employment effective November 9, 2016. The Court therefore held that benefits should accrue only up to November 9, 2016 (not November 25, 2016 as the CA had held).

Elements and Proof of Abandonment Applied

The Court applied the two-element test for abandonment: (1) absence from work without valid reason; and (2) clear intent to sever the employment relation

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 252124)

Case Caption, Procedural Posture, and Decision Date

G.R. No. 252124; Decision promulgated July 23, 2024 by the Supreme Court, First Division.
Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 assailing the Court of Appeals Decision (September 28, 2018) and Resolution (January 24, 2020) in CA-G.R. SP No. 11224.
Petitioners: Bohol Wisdom School (BWS), Dr. Simplicio Yap, Jr. (Chairman of Board of Trustees), and Raul H. Deloso (Head of Administrative Team) — collectively “BWS et al.”
Respondent/Complainant: Miraflor D. Mabao (former teacher at BWS).
Supreme Court disposition: Petition DENIED; Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION by the Supreme Court.

Factual Antecedents — Employment History and Allegations by Mabao

Mabao began employment at BWS on June 7, 2007 as a grade school teacher; she obtained regular status in 2010 and served as adviser for Grade 1 and Grade 2 until alleged dismissal on September 22, 2016.
Her monthly salary at the time was PHP 20,860.00, exclusive of other allowances and benefits which she alleged were not given.
Teaching assignments included Language 2, Physical Education 2, Arts 3, Mother Tongue, and Writing 2.
Mabao alleged diligent service with no prior infraction before the termination/suspension incident.

Factual Antecedents — Events Leading to Discipline (Mabao’s Version)

Sometime in the afternoon of September 21, 2016, Mabao informed Grade School Principal Melinda Sabaricos and Deloso about her pregnancy (approximately two months).
The father of the child was identified as her boyfriend, Ian Usaraga.
On September 22, 2016, Mabao was summoned to the conference room and Deloso verbally suspended her, instructing her not to report to classes starting the next day until she could present documents showing she was married to her boyfriend.
On September 27, 2016, Mabao was summoned to Deloso’s office and asked to receive a Disciplinary Form and a Letter stating she was indefinitely suspended without pay.
The Disciplinary Form included the following text (excerpted from record): “You engage in pre-marital relationship which lead you getting pregnant before marriage. Unless this problem is corrected, further disciplinary action will be taken up to and including the termination of your employment.… Others: Indefinite suspension until legally married.” (Emphasis supplied)
The accompanying Letter set out findings and referenced Republic Act No. 9710 (Magna Carta for Women) Section 13(c), but concluded that the conception was due to premarital sexual relations and characterized it as “immorality” and a ground for disciplinary action; the decision announced: “She will be suspended without pay until such time that she will be duly married to her [boyfriend]. Suspension will commence on September 22, 2016. The decision is final and executory.” (Emphasis supplied)
On October 5, 2016, Mabao filed a complaint before the NLRC for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal, among other claims (13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, rice allowance, separation pay, damages, attorney’s fees, and issuance of Certificate of Employment).

Factual Antecedents — Events Leading to Discipline (BWS et al.’s Version)

BWS et al. averred Mabao confessed to Principal Sabaricos and Deloso on September 19, 2016 that she was pregnant out of wedlock but was in the process of securing a marriage license.
On September 21, 2016, Mabao was called to a conference where she admitted violation, expressed regret, and informed that she was about to get married in a few days; parties allegedly agreed that, to avoid student reaction, she would be suspended until she married and directed to report back after the wedding.
On September 27, 2016, Mabao received the Disciplinary Form and the Letter stating indefinite suspension without pay.
Deloso’s Narrative Report stated the suspension was described as “indefinite” only in terms of an unspecified date, and based on discussion the suspension was understood to be between a minimum of one week to a maximum of two weeks depending on the date of marriage.
BWS sent a First Return-to-Work Notice dated October 7, 2016 after receiving information that Mabao married on October 5, 2016; Mabao initially refused to receive the notice and it was sent via registered mail.
A Second Return-to-Work Notice dated November 3, 2016 asked Mabao to report on November 7, 2016, stating her suspension had ended upon marriage.
A Third Return-to-Work Notice (November 22, 2016) informed Mabao she had been absent for 29 working days and requested she report within three days or explain why she should not be charged with abandonment and neglect; attempts to personally deliver these notices were reported in messenger Salvador Cirunay’s narrative, but Mabao refused to accept them.
BWS et al. maintained they intended to accept Mabao back to work and that she refused to return despite notices.

Labor Arbiter Findings and Reliefs

Labor Arbiter Bertino A. Ruaya, Jr. rendered a Decision dated January 31, 2017 finding that Mabao was constructively dismissed.
The LA ordered BWS et al. to pay Mabao, jointly and solidarily, backwages, separation pay, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, rice allowance, Christmas cash gift and attorney’s fees in the aggregate amount of PHP 320,678.19.
All other claims were dismissed for lack of merit.

NLRC Ruling (First Appeal) — Findings and Disposition

NLRC Decision dated May 31, 2017 granted BWS et al.’s appeal and reversed the Labor Arbiter, deleting the monetary award granted by the LA.
NLRC found no evidence of constructive dismissal and no overt act by BWS et al. to show the suspension amounted to dismissal.
NLRC observed Mabao and her boyfriend were married on October 5, 2016, two weeks after she informed BWS of her pregnancy, and that the couple already planned to marry — concluding the condition to marry was not coerced and was not comparable to Capin-Cadiz v. Brent Hospital and Colleges, Inc.
NLRC found no intent by BWS et al. to dismiss and reasoned BWS wanted her back but Mabao refused to return when duly notified.
Mabao’s Motion for Reconsideration before the NLRC was denied (Resolution dated July 17, 2017).

Court of Appeals Ruling — Holdings and Reliefs

The Court of Appeals, in the assailed Decision (September 28, 2018), partly granted Mabao’s petition for certiorari.
The CA affirmed the NLRC’s finding that there was no constructive dismissal but held Mabao was illegally suspended.
CA awarded: backwages from September 22, 2016 to October 7, 2016; 13th month pay accruing unt