G.R. No.

118978 May 23, 1997

PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION and GRACE DE GUZMAN

PRINCIPLE:

Section 14 of Article XIII of the constitution; mandates that the State shall protect working
women through provisions for opportunities that would enable them to reach their full potential.

FACTS:

Grace de Guzman (De Guzman) was initially hired by Philippine Telegraph and Telephone
Company (hereafter, PT & T) as a reliever (Supernumerary Project Worker) for a fixed period from
November 21, 1990 until April 20, 1991 for the maternity leave ofC.F. Tenorio. Under the Reliever
Agreement her employment was to be immediately terminated upon expiration of the agreed
period. From July 19, 1991 to August 8, 1991, De Guzman became a reliver for Erlinda F. Dizon who
went on leave. On September 2, 1991, De Guzman was hired as a probationary employee, with a
period to cover 150 days. In the job application form she indicated in the portion for civil status that
she was single although she had contracted marriage a few months earlier.

De Guzman made the same representation in the two successive reliever agreements she
signed. PT&T branch supervisor in Baguio City, Delia M. Oficial, sent to De Guzman a memorandum
dated requiring her to explain the discrepancy. In that memorandum, she was reminded about the
company's policy of not accepting married women for employment. De Guzman answered that she
was not aware of PT&T's policy regarding married women at the time, and that she had not
deliberately hidden her true civil status. PT&T dismissed De Guzman from the company. De Guzman
initiated a complaint for illegal dismissal, coupled with a claim for non-payment of cost of living
allowances (COLA), before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations
Commission in Baguio City. At the preliminary conference PT&T stated that De Guzman failed to
remit the amount of P2,380.75 of her collections. She then executed a promissory note for that
amount.

On November 23, 1993, Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando handed down a decision declaring
that private respondent, who had already gained the status of a regular employee, was illegally
dismissed by petitioner. Her reinstatement, plus payment of the corresponding back wages and
COLA. Later PT&T appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which upheld the
decision of the labor arbiter but with modifications that Grace de Guzman deserved to be suspended
for three months in view of the dishonest nature of her acts The subsequent motion for
reconsideration filed by petitioner was rebuffed by respondent NLRC .

ISSUE:

Whether or not PT&T’s policy for employment is unlawful.

HELD:
 Yes. The Constitution, cognizant of the disparity in rights between men and women and
provides protective provisions; Section 14, Article II8 that commands the State to ensure, at all times,
the fundamental equality before the law of women and men and Section 14 of Article XIII 10
mandates that the State shall protect working women through provisions for opportunities that
would enable them to reach their full potential. The employer is free to regulate all aspects of
employment, "from hiring to firing," except in cases of unlawful discrimination or those which may
be provided by law. Seen from the memorandum by Delia M. Oficial that her dismissal was principally
because of the company's policy that married women are not qualified for employment in PT & T,
and not merely because of her supposed acts of dishonesty. To which she was forced by situation to
do in the first place because of their policy of not admitting married women.

A policy against marriage followed by petitioner PT & T is that it strikes at the very essence,
ideals and purpose of marriage as an inviolable social institution and, ultimately, of the family as the
foundation of the nation. PT&T’S dismissal of De Guzman was during her winding down period of
being a probationary employee, if it not for their policy she would have been a permanent employee,
thus such policy endagers her security of tenure to which the constitution protects.

Lastly, the company is violative of Art. 136 of the Labor Code; it is unlawful for an employer to require
as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman shall not get married.
Thus the company’s policy for employment is unlawful for it violated the labor code, the
constitution, and public policy to not discriminate aginst women. As for her misconduct the court’s
rightful found her suspension of three months as rightful nontheless she should be re-admitted with
all the benefits she seeks and the court decided that PT&T should pay double.