SC: Suspending unmarried teacher for being pregnant unlawful

BY GEROME DALIPE

ILOILO City – The Supreme Court (SC) has declared that suspending an employee due to premarital pregnancy is illegal and cannot be used as a valid justification for disciplinary action.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, the SC’s First Division ruled that the indefinite suspension imposed by Bohol Wisdom School (BWS) on teacher Miraflor Mabao was unlawful. 

Mabao, a grade school teacher at BWS, a Christian institution, was suspended when she became two months pregnant out of wedlock. 

The school principal, Raul Deloso, initially issued a verbal suspension, stating that Mabao could only return to work after marrying the child’s father. 

This was later formalized in a written notice, citing “immorality” as the basis for the suspension.

The SC found that the school’s actions violated Mabao’s rights as an employee and reiterated that premarital pregnancy is not inherently immoral. 

This decision reverses the National Labor Relations Commission’s earlier ruling, which upheld Mabao’s suspension.

The SC affirmed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling that while there was no constructive dismissal, Mabao’s suspension by BWS was illegal. 

The SC emphasized that premarital sexual relations between consenting, unmarried adults are not immoral and do not constitute valid grounds for disciplinary action.

The SC clarified that public and secular morality — standards derived from conduct harmful to society, not religious beliefs — should guide legal and employment matters. 

It warned that basing public policies on religious doctrines would impose a religious agenda, violating constitutional principles.

The SC further highlighted that no law prohibits premarital sexual relations or considers it immoral under the Constitution. 

Therefore, Mabao’s pregnancy out of wedlock was not a valid justification for her suspension.

As a result, the SC ordered BWS to compensate Mabao with back wages and benefits for the period of her suspension. 

The case emphasizes the SC’s stance on protecting employees from discriminatory practices based on personal and moral judgments, especially in contexts involving gender and pregnancy./PN

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here