PT&T vs NLRC

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.

DUNCAN ASSOC OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO and TECSON vs. GLAXO

G.R. No. 162994 September 17, 2004

DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO and PEDRO A.

TECSON, petitioners,
vs.
GLAXO WELLCOME PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.

FACTS: Petitioner Pedro A. Tecson (Tecson) was hired by respondent Glaxo

Wellcome Philippines, Inc. (Glaxo) as medical representative on October 24,
1995, after Tecson had undergone training and orientation.
Thereafter, Tecson signed a contract of employment which stipulates, among
others, that he agrees to study and abide by existing company rules; to disclose
to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity
with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies and should
management find that such relationship poses a possible conflict of interest, to
resign from the company. Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly provides these
conditions; that otherwise, 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.
Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxos products in the Camarines Sur-
Camarines Norte sales area. Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic
relationship with Bettsy, an employee of Astra Pharmaceuticals3(Astra), a
competitor of Glaxo. Bettsy was Astras Branch Coordinator in Albay. She
supervised the district managers and medical representatives of her company
and prepared marketing strategies for Astra in that area.
Even before they got married, Tecson received several reminders from his District
Manager regarding the conflict of interest which his relationship with Bettsy
might engender. Still, love prevailed, and Tecson married Bettsy in September
1998.
Tecsons superior reminded him that he and Bettsy should decide which one of
them would resign from their jobs. Tecson requested for time to comply with the
company policy against entering into a relationship with an employee of a
competitor company. He explained that Astra, Bettsys employer, was planning to
merge with Zeneca, another drug company; and Bettsy was planning to avail of
the redundancy package to be offered by Astra.

Tecson again requested for more time resolve the problem. Thereafter, Tecson
applied for a transfer in Glaxos milk division, thinking that since Astra did not
have a milk division, the potential conflict of interest would be eliminated. His
application was denied in view of Glaxos least-movement-possible policy.
Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales
area. Tecson asked Glaxo to reconsider its decision, but his request was denied.
Tecson defied the transfer order and continued acting as medical representative
in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE CASE: Because the parties failed to resolve the issue
at the grievance machinery level, they submitted the matter for voluntary
arbitration, but Tecson 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.

CA sustained; MR denied.

Petitioners Contention: that Glaxos policy against employees marrying

employees of competitor companies violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution because it creates invalid distinctions among employees on account
only of marriage. They claim that the policy restricts the employees right to
marry; that Tecson was constructively dismissed

GLAXO argues: that the company policy prohibiting its employees from having a
relationship with and/or marrying an employee of a competitor company is a
valid exercise of its management prerogatives and does not violate the equal
protection clause;

The policy is also aimed at preventing a competitor company from gaining access
to its secrets, procedures and policies; that Tecson can no longer question the
assailed company policy because when he signed his contract of employment, he
was aware that such policy was stipulated therein.

ISSUE: WON Glaxos policy against its employees marrying employees from
competitor companies is valid

HELD: The Court finds no merit in the petition.

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.

Indeed, while our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on social
justice and the protection of labor, it does not mean that every labor dispute will
be decided in favor of the workers. The law also recognizes that management has
rights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair
play.21

EQUAL-PROTECTION: 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.
Moreover, records show that Glaxo gave Tecson several chances to eliminate the
conflict of interest brought about by his relationship with Bettsy.
PETITION DENIED.
______________

Other Issue on Constructive dismissal:

The Court finds no merit in petitioners contention that Tescon 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.30 None of these conditions are present in the instant case.