Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

PT & T vs.

NLRC
G.R. No. 118978; May 23, 1997

Facts: Grace de Guzman was initially hired by petitioner as a reliever for a fixed period
from November 21, 1990 until April 20, 1991 vice one C.F. Tenorio who went on
maternity leave. Under the Reliever Agreement which she signed with Petitioner
Company, her employment was to be immediately terminated upon expiration of the
agreed period. Thereafter, from June 10, 1991 to July 1, 1991, and from July 19, 1991
to August 8, 1991, private respondents services as reliever were again engaged by
petitioner, this time in replacement of one Erlinda F. Dizon who went on leave during
both periods. After August 8, 1991, and pursuant to their Reliever Agreement, her
services were terminated.

It now appears that private respondent had made the a representation that she was
single even though she contracted marriage months before, in the two successive
reliever agreements which she signed on June 10, 1991 and July 8, 1991. When
petitioner supposedly learned about the same later, its branch supervisor sent to private
respondent a memorandum requiring her to explain the discrepancy. In that
memorandum, she was reminded about the companys policy of not accepting married
women for employment.

Private respondent was dismissed from the company effective January 29, 1992, which
she readily contested by initiating a complaint for illegal dismissal. Labor Arbiter handed
down a decision declaring that private respondent, who had already gained the status of
a regular employee, was illegally dismissed by petitioner. On appeal to the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), said public respondent upheld the labor arbiter
and it ruled that private respondent had indeed been the subject of an unjust and
unlawful discrimination by her employer, PT&T.

ISSUE: Whether the alleged concealment of civil status can be grounds to terminate the
services of an employee.

HELD:

Article 136 of the Labor Code, one of the protective laws for women, explicitly prohibits
discrimination merely by reason of marriage of a female employee. It is recognized that
company is free to regulate manpower and employment from hiring to firing, according
to their discretion and best business judgment, except in those cases of unlawful
discrimination or those provided by law.

PT&Ts policy of not accepting or disqualifying from work any woman worker who
contracts marriage is afoul of the right against discrimination provided to all women
workers by our labor laws and by our Constitution. The record discloses clearly that de
Guzmans ties with PT&T were dissolved principally because of the companys policy
that married women are not qualified for employment in the company, and not merely
because of her supposed acts of dishonesty.

The government abhors any stipulation or policy in the nature adopted by PT&T. As
stated in the labor code:

ART. 136. Stipulation against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an employer to


require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman shall
not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman
employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge,
discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of marriage.

The policy of PT&T is in derogation of the provisions stated in Art.136 of the Labor Code
on the right of a woman to be free from any kind of stipulation against marriage in
connection with her employment and it likewise is contrary to good morals and public
policy, depriving a woman of her freedom to choose her status, a privilege that is
inherent in an individual as an intangible and inalienable right. The kind of policy
followed by PT&T strikes at the very essence, ideals and purpose of marriage as an
inviolable social institution and ultimately, family as the foundation of the nation. Such
policy must be prohibited in all its indirect, disguised or dissembled forms as
discriminatory conduct derogatory of the laws of the land not only for order but also
imperatively required.
Duncan Asso. Of Detailman-PTGWO vs. Glaxo Wellcome Phils.
G.R. No. 162994, Sept. 17, 2004

Facts: Oct.24,1994 , Petitioner Pedro Tecson was hired by respondent Glaxo


Wellcome Philppines(glaxo) as medical representative thereafter signed a contract of
employment which stipulates among others that he agrees to study and abide existing
company rules; to disclose to management any existing of future relationship by
consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies
and if ever that such management find such conflict of interest,he must resign. The
Employee Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly provides that an employee is expected to
inform management of any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity
with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies. If management
perceives a conflict of interest or a potential conflict between such relationship and the
employees employment with the company, the management and the employee will
explore the possibility of a transfer to another department in a non-counterchecking
position or preparation for employment outside the company after six months.

Reminders from Tecsons district manager did not stop him from marrying.Tecson
married Bettsy, an Astras Branch Coordinatior in Albay. She supervised the district
managers and medical representatives of her company and prepared marketing
strategies for Astra in that area.

Tecson was reassigned to another place and was not given products that the Astra
company has and he was not included in products seminars and training.

Tecson requested for time in complying said policy by asking for a transfer in the
Glaxos milk division in which the other company had no counterpart. Thereafter, he
bought the matter to Grievance Committee but the parties failed to resolve such issue,
Glaxo offered Tecson a separation pay of one-half () month pay for every year of
service, or a total of P50,000.00 but he declined the offer. On November 15, 2000, the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) rendered its Decision declaring as
valid Glaxos policy on relationships between its employees and persons employed with
competitor companies, and affirming Glaxos right to transfer Tecson to another sales
territory.

Tecson filed for a petition for review on the CA and the CA promulgated that the NCMB
did not err in rendering its decision. A recon was filed in appellate court but it was
denied, hence this petition for certiorari. Petitioners contention it was violative of
constitutional law which is the equal protection clause and he was constructively
dismissed while the respondents contention that it is a valid exercise of it s
management prerogatives.

Issue: Whether or not the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees
from marrying employees of another pharmaceutical company is valid?

Ruling: This petition was denied. Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets,
manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and
information from competitors, especially so that it and Astra are rival companies in the
highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.

The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor


companies upon Glaxos employees is reasonable under the circumstances because
relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. In laying
down the assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the
possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.

That Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economic interests cannot be denied. No
less than the Constitution recognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforce such
a policy to protect its right to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and
growth.

The challenged company policy does not violate the equal protection clause of the
Constitution as petitioners erroneously suggest. It is a settled principle that the
commands of the equal protection clause are addressed only to the state or those
acting under color of its authority.

From the wordings of the contractual provision and the policy in its employee handbook,
it is clear that Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibition against relationships
between its employees and those of competitor companies. Its employees are free to
cultivate relationships with and marry persons of their own choosing. What the
company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between the employee and the
company that may arise out of such relationships.

There was no merit in Tecsons contention that he was constructively dismissed when
he was transferred from the Camarines Norte-Camarines Sur sales area to the Butuan
City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area, and when he was excluded from attending
the companys seminar on new products which were directly competing with similar
products manufactured by Astra. Constructive dismissal is defined as a quitting, an
involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes impossible,
unreasonable, or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay; or
when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes
unbearable to the employee. The record does not show that Tecson was demoted or
unduly discriminated upon by reason of such transfer.