Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.

Stipulation Against Marriage (Note: We read this in Consti 2, I think) FACTS: Pedro Tecson was hired by Glaxo. Their contract of employment stipulates, among others, that he must inform the management of any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies. o Should management find that such relationship poses a possible conflict of interest, he must resign from the company. According to the Employee Code of Conduct, on the other hand, the management and employee will explore the possibility of a transfer to another department in a non-counterchecking position. Otherwise, the employee will be prepared for employment outside the company after 6 months. While assigned in Camarines Sur to market Glaxos products, Pedro met and fell in love with Bettsy, an employee of competitor Astra Pharmaceuticals. Tecson received reminders from his district manager about the dangers of their relationship. Tecson still ended up marrying Bettsy in September 1998. In January 1999, Tecsons superiors told him that the marriage gave rise to a conflict of interest. o Asked to choose which one of them would keep their jobs. o Glaxo wanted to keep Tecson because he was performing well. Tecson asked for more time. He explained that Astra was going to merge with Zeneca (another pharma firm) and that Bettsy might be able to take advantage of the redundancy package. After 8 months, he asked for more time again. In September, he asked to be transferred to the Milk Division, thinking that since Astra didnt have one, the conflict of interest would be eliminated. Glaxo decided to transfer him to the Butuan CitySurigao CityAgusan del Sur sales area. Tecson asked for reconsideration. He defied the transfer order and continued working in Camarines Sur/Norte. Matter was submitted for grievance proceedings. Meanwhile, Tecson could not sell products which were competing with Astro products. Matter was later submitted for voluntary arbitration. o Offer of separation pay denied. o NCMB declared the policy on relationships VALID. CA denied Tecsons petition for review. MR denied. Hence, this petition. ISSUES: 1. WoN Glaxos policy is valid; and 2. WoN Tecson was constructively dismissed.

RULING: 1. YES. The policy is valid. o Stipulation: You agree to disclose to management any existing or future relationship you may have, either by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies. Should it pose a possible conflict of interest in management discretion, you agree to resign voluntarily from the Company as a matter of Company policy. o Tecson likewise bound himself to study and abide by the company rules and policies. o Conflict of interest, under the employee handbook, includes: To avoid having personal or family interest, financial or otherwise, in any competitor supplier or other businesses which may consciously or unconsciously influence their actions or decisions and thus deprive Glaxo Wellcome of legitimate profit. o Court takes judicial notice of the competitiveness of the pharmaceutical industry. Glaxo has the right to protect its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies, and other information. o The policy is not unreasonable. Glaxo only wants to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor might gain access to its secrets. o Const. guarantees that management has a right to reasonable returns to investments and to expansion and growth. Not every labor dispute will be decided in favor of labor. o The policy does not violate equal protection. That argument can only be invoked against the State. o Neither was Tecson deprived of due process. He was repeatedly reminded of the repercussions of his relationship. o The prohibition is NOT ABSOLUTE. Employee still free to marry anyone of his own choosing. What Glaxo merely seeks to prevent is a conflict of interest. The policy is not aimed at restricting a personal prerogative that belongs only to the individual. However, an employees personal decision does not detract the employer from exercising management prerogatives to ensure maximum profit o Tecson knew about the policy before he signed the contract. He is therefore estopped from questioning such policy. 2. NO. He was not constructively dismissed. o Constructive dismissal 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.

o Not present in this case, when Tecson was transferred from the Camarines area to Butuan. o No demotion, no discrimination by reason of such transfer. o Power to transfer is a management prerogative. o Medical Representatives really travel. Its part of the job. DISPOSITION: Petition denied for lack of merit.