Those who are guilty of unjust acts should not go to court and seek relief for alleged injustice. A wife who asks for annulment due to the infidelity of her husband should make sure that she is not herself guilty of adultery.
An employee who stole from the company cannot win in a case of illegal dismissal. A corporate manager who asked for money from her former employer and was denied, cannot turn around and accuse her former bosses of sexual harassment.
The Clean Hands Doctrine is a legal maxim of equity. Based on the research of the Cornell Law School Journal, the US Supreme Court explained the philosophy behind this maxim, in the case of Colby vs Overton, which is really to prevent a party to a litigation to obtain legal remedy when that party itself committed a wrongful act which proximately led to the problematic situation he was in. Also, in the case of Holy Family Catholic School vs Boley, the school opened an account at a pharmacy for the benefit of all employees for work related injuries. The employee, Boley, was proven to have obtained medicines for injuries that were not work-related. Thus, the school closed the account, Boley sued and his suit was denied by the Court. His hands were not clean.
In the case of PLDT vs NLRC (GR No 80609, August 23, 1988), the Supreme Court En Banc denied separation pay to a long-time employee because she accepted bribes from PLDT customers in consideration of her promise to facilitate approval of their applications for telephone installations.
After due process, she was found guilty and was fired by management. She filed a case demanding payment of separation pay. The NLRC held that the dismissal was legal but granted her separation pay based on the principles of social justice and compassion for the workers. The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC and held that there should be no compassion for rascals and no social justice for scoundrels.
Justice Isagani Cruz, one of the best writers ever to occupy the position of Associate Justice in the highest court of the land, (an appointee of President Cory Aquino, by the way) wrote for the High Court: "Indeed if an employee is granted separation pay even as she is validly dismissed, it is not unlikely that she will commit a similar offense in her next employment because she thinks that she can expect a like leniency if she is again found out. This kind of misplaced compassion is not going to do labor in general any good as it will encourage the infiltration of its ranks by those who do not deserve the protection and concern of the Constitution." We concur.
The pen of Justice Cruz wrote with a razor blade sharpness when he wrote in this case: "The policy of social justice is not intended to tolerate wrongdoing simply because it is committed by the underprivileged. At best, it may mitigate the penalty but it certainly will not condone the offense. Compassion for the poor is an imperative of every humane society but only when the recipient is not a rascal claiming an undeserved privilege. Social justice cannot be permitted to be a refuge for scoundrels".
In the case of Digitel Telecom vs MS, the Supreme Court speaking through Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales dismissed the claim of a female corporate manager because her tale of sexual advances by her bosses were not only incredible, she herself had a doubtful credibility. Her hands were not clean.
The Supreme Court ended its ruling in the P:DT case: "Those who invoke social justice may do so only if their hands are clean and their motives blameless and not simply because they happen to be poor." And we add: The law may be hard, but it is the law. Dura lex, sed lex.