Philippines: When an Employee’s Personal Life Becomes Actionable in the Workplace: A Legal Perspective on Extramarital Affairs as a Ground for Termination of Employment Under Philippine Labour Law

Authors: Rashel Ann C. Pomoy and Edgardo P. Paras III

 

Romantic relationships at work are nothing new, but when they involve married individuals, employers navigate a complex legal and ethical minefield in the Philippines. In a country where morality, family values, and labour rights carry significant weight, how does the law address these situations?

This article examines the legal standards, jurisprudence, and key concerns surrounding extramarital affairs in the workplace.

The first inescapable fact is that, in the Philippines, immorality has been recognised as a ground to terminate employment. Under Philippine jurisprudence, immorality refers to behaviour offending community standards, understood as wilful, shameless actions contrary to societal norms. As stated in Inocente vs. St. Vincent Foundation, G.R. No. 202621, dated 22 June 2016, acts deemed immoral or disgraceful are those that plainly contradict accepted standards of right and wrong. These are considered punishable not only for being personally inappropriate but also because they are, supposedly, proven to be detrimental to the social and moral foundations upon which human society depends.

In Bohol Wisdom School vs. Mabao, G.R. No. 252124, dated 23 July 2024, the Philippine Supreme Court emphasised that whether conduct is immoral must be assessed based on the totality of circumstances and prevailing societal norms, not personal or religious beliefs.

Immorality, by itself, is not explicitly listed as a ground for termination under Article 297 [282] of the Labour Code. However, if the immoral conduct falls under any of the just causes for termination, such as serious misconduct, wilful breach of the employer’s trust, or acts analogous to those listed, it may be used to justify dismissal.

For instance, in Santos, Jr. vs. National Labour Relations Commission, G.R. No. 115795, dated 06 March 1998, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of a teacher found to be having an extramarital affair with another teacher – both of them being married to another – emphasising that such behaviour is an afront to the sanctity of marriage, which is a basic institution of society.

In the same case, the Supreme Court cited the grounds for termination for just causes, and Section 94 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, which explicitly considers such act as an additional ground for termination of employment of school personnel, including faculty.

A review of jurisprudence shows that immoral conduct that would warrant termination typically pertains to extramarital affairs, which involve a romantic or sexual relationship between a married person and someone other than their spouse.

In the Bohol Wisdom School case, for instance, the Court ruled that pregnancy out of wedlock does not automatically indicate immorality, especially when the employee performs their duties effectively. Likewise, in the Inocente case, a consensual relationship between two unmarried co-workers was deemed not immoral, as it did not disrupt workplace harmony or harm employer interests.

Based on case law, to terminate an employee for having an extramarital affair, employers must demonstrate actual prejudice to their legitimate interests such as harm to reputation or workplace disruption and provide substantial evidence, which is relevant and credible proof that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Examples include:

• Texts, emails, or messages confirming the affair
• Photos, videos, or social media posts
• Witness affidavits
• Findings from internal investigations
• Written admission by the parties involved

In Santos, the testimonies of nine (9) witnesses were presented to prove the affair.

Moreover, while immorality must be demonstrably grave to justify termination, personal conduct between consenting adults does not automatically equate to serious misconduct or wilful disobedience. To rely on immorality as a just cause, employers should have clearly articulated rules on workplace conduct, included in employment contracts or company handbooks, and must follow due process in investigating allegations.

In Salvarria vs. Letran College, G.R. No. 110396, 25 September 1998, the Supreme Court held that “in order that an employer may terminate an employee on the ground of wilful disobedience to the former’s orders, regulations, or instructions, it must be established that the said orders, regulations, or instructions are (a) reasonable and lawful, (b) sufficiently known to the employee, and (c) in connection with the duties, which the employee has been engaged to discharge.” For this ground, the employer must have a clear policy and justification on its prohibition on having extramarital affairs.

In sum, whenever there is a complaint involving extramarital affairs or when there is an invocation of immorality, employers must tread carefully when navigating these sensitive situations. The management prerogative to discipline must not be confused with moral policing. Labour law demands objectivity, fairness, and respect for personal autonomy. Clear policies, impartial investigations, and proper documentation are essential. Employees, in turn, should remain aware that while private conduct is protected, it may still affect their professional standing when it seriously violates workplace norms or causes actual harm to their employer.