JOSE S. SANTOS, JR., PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL   LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HAGONOY INSTITUTE INC., ITS DIRECTRESS,  MARTA B. ZUNIGA AND PRINCIPAL B. BANAG, RESPONDENT.

Santos versus National Labor Relations Commission

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Jose Santos, Junior, a married teacher dismissed by Hagonoy Institute Incorporated on the ground of immorality after he was found to have carried on an illicit relationship with a co-teacher who was likewise married. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct demanded of teachers, both in their official and personal lives, and because it clarifies when an offense touching moral character bars the award of separation pay or financial assistance on the ground of social justice.

Procedural History

Jose Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission, Regional Arbitration Branch Number Three, in San Fernando, Pampanga. Labor Arbiter Quintin Mendoza dismissed the complaint but awarded him thirteen thousand seven hundred fifty pesos as financial assistance. Santos appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit in a decision dated November 29, 1993. His motion for reconsideration met the same fate. He then came to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

Jose Santos, a married man, was employed as a teacher by Hagonoy Institute Incorporated from June 1980 until his dismissal on June 1, 1991. Also working as a teacher for the same school was Mrs. Arlene Martin, likewise married. In the course of their employment the two fell in love, and rumors of their relationship spread among the faculty and school officials.

On November 3, 1990, the school advised Mrs. Martin to take a leave of absence, which she ignored. On November 9, 1990, she was barred from reporting for work and effectively dismissed. She then filed her own complaint for illegal dismissal, which the labor arbiter dismissed, but which the National Labor Relations Commission later reversed for the school's failure to accord her procedural due process.

Meanwhile, the school set up a committee to investigate the rumors. After two weeks the committee confirmed the illicit relationship. On December 19, 1990, Santos was administratively charged with immorality and required to present his side. In May 1991 the Board of Directors informed him of his dismissal effective June 1, 1991. He filed his complaint for illegal dismissal on August 12, 1991.

Issues

• Whether or not the illicit relationship between Santos and Mrs. Martin amounted to immorality constituting a just cause to terminate his employment.
• Whether or not the school proved the charge of immorality by substantial evidence.
• Whether or not Santos was accorded due process in his dismissal.
• Whether or not he is entitled to the financial assistance awarded by the labor arbiter.

Applicable Provisions

Article 282 of the Labor Code, as amended, provides:

(a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work; (b) Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his duties; (c) Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized representative; (d) Commission of a crime or offense by the employee against the person of his employer or any immediate member of his family or his duly authorized representative; and (e) Other causes analogous to the foregoing.

This is the statutory list of just causes on which the dismissal must rest.

Section 94 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides:

Section 94. Causes of Terminating Employment. In addition to the just cases enumerated in the Labor Code, the employment of school personnels, including faculty, may be terminated for any of the following causes: E. Disgraceful or immoral conduct.

This provision expressly makes disgraceful or immoral conduct a ground for terminating faculty members.

Article 68 of the Family Code provides:

The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

This shows that an extra-marital affair affronts the sanctity of marriage.

Article 218 of the Family Code provides:

The schools, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institutions engaged in child care shall have special parental authority over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody. Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or instruction.

This underscores the teacher's role as one standing in the place of parents, which demands exemplary conduct.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the illicit relationship, both parties being married, amounted to immorality justifying termination. Immorality is a course of conduct which offends the morals of the community and is a bad example to the youth whose ideals a teacher is supposed to foster and to elevate. A teacher serves as an example to his pupils and stands in the place of parents to them. There is no dichotomy of morality: a teacher, both in his official and personal conduct, must display exemplary behavior, and his personal behavior in and outside the classroom must be beyond reproach.

On the second issue, the Court held that the employer bears the burden of proving the just cause by substantial evidence. The finding of the National Labor Relations Commission, which coincided with that of the labor arbiter, was supported by the testimonies of nine witnesses, namely a fourth year student, a security guard, a janitor, and six co-teachers, which Santos failed to rebut. His bare denial, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative and self-serving evidence that cannot prevail over the testimony of credible witnesses who testified on affirmative matters.

On the third issue, the Court held that Santos was amply afforded due process. A committee was formed, an administrative charge was filed, he was required to testify, he was given the opportunity to answer, and he was present at the hearing and gave his side. He could not take refuge in the ruling in Mrs. Martin's case, because her dismissal was declared illegal solely for the school's failure to accord her due process.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the grant of financial assistance had no factual and legal basis. Separation pay as a measure of social justice is granted only where the employee is validly dismissed for a cause other than serious misconduct or those reflecting his moral character. Where the dismissal rests on an offense involving moral turpitude, like an illicit sexual relationship with a fellow worker, the employer may not be required to give separation pay or financial assistance.

Doctrine

A valid dismissal requires two requisites: the dismissal must be for any of the causes expressed in Article 282 of the Labor Code, and the employee must be accorded due process, the basics of which are the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. A teacher who engages in an extra-marital relationship, especially where both parties are married, commits immorality, which is a just cause for termination under Article 282 and a ground for terminating faculty under Section 94 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. The employer bears the burden of proving the just cause by substantial evidence. Finally, separation pay or financial assistance on the ground of social justice may not be awarded where the valid dismissal is for serious misconduct or an offense reflecting the employee's moral character.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, the rulings of the National Labor Relations Commission were affirmed, and the financial assistance of thirteen thousand seven hundred fifty pesos was deleted, with costs against Santos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that there is no dichotomy of morality: a teacher, both in his official and personal conduct, must display exemplary behavior, and his personal behavior in and outside the classroom must be beyond reproach. Examiners use this case on just causes for dismissal, the substantial evidence standard, and the rule that no separation pay or financial assistance is due where the dismissal is for an offense involving moral turpitude.