PT&T vs.
NLRC
272 SCRA 596
FACTS:
PT&T (Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Company) initially hired
Grace de Guzman specifically as Supernumerary Project Worker, for
a fixed period from November 21, 1990 until April 20, 1991 as reliever
for C.F. Tenorio who went on maternity leave. She was again invited for
employment as replacement of Erlina F. Dizon who went on leave on 2
periods, from June 10, 1991 to July 1, 1991 and July 19, 1991 to August
8, 1991.
On September 2, 1991, de Guzman was again asked to join
PT&T as a probationary employee where probationary period will cover
150 days. She indicated in the portion of the job application form
under civil status that she was single although she had contracted
marriage a few months earlier. When petitioner learned later about the
marriage, its branch supervisor, Delia M. Oficial, sent de Guzman a
memorandum requiring her to explain the discrepancy. Included in the
memorandum, was a reminder about the companys policy of not
accepting married women for employment. She was dismissed from
the company effective January 29, 1992. Labor Arbiter handed down
decision on November 23, 1993 declaring that petitioner illegally
dismissed De Guzman, who had already gained the status of a regular
employee. Furthermore, it was apparent that she had been
discriminated on account of her having contracted marriage in
violation of company policies.
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.
Facts:
1. The petitioner company is engaged in providing telegraph and communication services
through its different branches while the Private Respondents are its employees. After
conducting a study, the petitioner implemented a relocation restructuring program
wherein the private respondents were given options to choose a branch where they will
transfer. Those who accept will be offered allowances and other benefits.
2. The private respondents however, rejected the offer on the ground that the transfer
would cause difficulties since the branches were far and would entail separation from
their respective families. The petitioner considered the refusal as insubordination and
willful disobedience and thus dismissed the private respondents. This prompted the
respondents to file a complaint for illegal dismissal while the union filed a ULP case
against the company.
3. The petitioner alleged that the tranffer was an exercise of management prerogative and
was done in good faith aimed at decongesting surplus employees. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but the NLRC reversed the decision and held
that the respondents were illegally dismissed. It interpreted the transfers as a promotion,
hence the respondents had the right to accept or refuse. They could not be dismissed on
the ground of refusing a promotion.
Issue: Whether or not there is a valid ground to dismiss the private respondents/Whether
or not the transfers are considered as promotions
RULING:
 Yes, the transfers are in fact promotions. An employee cannot be promoted order of an employer. Hence, there is no valid cause for the private respondents'
without his consent. Moreover, there is no law compelling an employee to accept a dismissal.
promotion because it is in the nature of a gift or rewarrd which he can refuse. His refusal
cannot therefore be considered as an insubordination or willful disobedience of a lawful