The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that sexual relations between two unmarried persons that led to pregnancy are not deemed immoral and do not justify the suspension from work of the pregnant woman.

Reiterating its previous rulings, the SC said that “sexual intercourse between two consenting adults who have no legal impediment to marry… is not deemed as immoral.”

The SC, in its latest decision on the issue written by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, also said: “No law proscribes such, and said conduct does not contravene any fundamental state policy enshrined in the Constitution.”

With its ruling, the SC declared illegal the suspension by the Bohol Wisdom School (BWS) of a teacher (Manila Bulletin decided to redact her name) who became pregnant before marriage to his boyfriend (name also redacted).

The case was docketed in the SC as GR No. 252124 and filed by BWS which challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA).

The woman was a grade school teacher at BWS, a Christian school. She informed the school principal of her two-month pregnancy and her scheduled marriage to her boyfriend.

She was verbally suspended as a teacher by the school principal who informed her that she is suspended indefinitely until her marriage to the father of her child for violation of the school’s policy.

Five days later, the teacher received a written notice of suspension due to immorality.

The teacher filed a complaint for illegal suspension. The labor arbiter ruled that she was constructively dismissed. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), however, reversed the arbiter.

She appealed before the CA which ruled that while there was no constructive dismissal since the school manifested that the suspension would be lifted after her marriage, she was illegally suspended by the school.

The CA did not find the teacher’s conduct immoral as she did not have sexual relations with a married man and neither was she married at that time.

Thus, the CA ordered the school to pay the teacher all the salaries and benefits she did not receive during her suspension and to issue her a certificate of employment.

The school elevated the case to the SC. It informed the SC that the teacher, herself, refused to return to work when she was asked to do so.

The SC noted that the teacher, herself, manifested on Nov. 9, 20216 her intention not to return to work which was “her clear intention to sever her employment with the school.”

In resolving the school’s petition, the SC said:

“In the eyes of the law, there is a standard of morality that binds all those who come before it, which is public and secular, not religious.

“It is important to make this distinction as the Court’s jurisdiction extends only to public and secular morality.

“Public and secular morality refers to conduct proscribed because they are detrimental to conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human society.

“Otherwise, if government relies upon religious beliefs in formulating public policies and morals, the resulting policies and morals would require conformity to what some might regard as religious program or agenda.

“In this case, respondent (teacher) was suspended for engaging in premarital sexual relations, resulting in being pregnant out of wedlock.

“The Court had previously ruled in similar cases that premarital sexual relations resulting in pregnancy out of wedlock cannot be considered disgraceful or immoral when viewed against the prevailing norms of conduct.

“We thus find that respondent’s act of engaging in premarital sexual relations with her boyfriend and eventually getting pregnant, is not disgraceful or immoral within the contemplation of the law.

“In this case, respondent confessed her violation of school policy on Sept. 19, 2016. Per the Minutes of the Administrative Team Meeting held on Sept. 21, 2016, prior to including respondent in the meeting to discuss her situation, the Administrative Team already decided that respondent will be suspended starting Sept. 22, 2026 until she is legally married to her partner.

“Verily, petitioners (the school and its officials) already decided respondent’s disciplinary sanction before hearing her side. Petitioners cannot therefore claim substantial compliance with procedural due process.

“For petitioners’ failure to comply with substantive and procedural due process in suspending respondent, the CA did not err in ruling that her suspension is illegal.”

With its ruling, the SC directed the school and its officials to pay the teacher her backwages from Sept. 23, 2016 to Oct. 7, 2016, and 13^th month pay accruing until Nov. 9, 2016.

Also, the school was ordered pay her unpaid rice allowance, laundry allowance, midyear bonus, vacation/sick leave due her until Nov. 9, 2016, and 10 percent of the total monetary award as attorney’s fees.

The school was further ordered to issue a Certificate of Employment to the teacher.

Fire hits homes in Quezon City