STAR PAPER CORPORATION vs

RONALDO D. SIMBOL, WILFREDA N. COMIA & LORNA E. ESTRELLA,

G.R. No. 164774
April 12, 2006

FACTS

Petitioner Star Paper Corporation is a corporation engaged in trading principally of

paper products. Josephine Ongsitco is its Manager of the Personnel and Administration
Department while Sebastian Chua is its Managing Director.

The company has employment policy, wherein:

a) new applicants will not be hired if he has a relative up to 3rd degree of relationship in
the company;

b) in case two of the employees decide to get married, one of them should resign.

Simbol was employed in 1993, married co-employee Alma Dayrit in 1998, and then
resigned in 1998 purusant to the policy.

Comia was hired in 1997, met and married a co-employee in 2000, and resigned in that
same year. Estrella, on the other hand, got pregnant by a married man and opted to
resign in 1999.

However, respondents claim that they did not resign voluntarily but were in fact
compelled to resign in view of an illegal company policy, with respect to Estrella,
because of immorality.

They filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and constructive dismissal averring that
the company policy is illegal and contravenes Article 136 of the Labor Code and that
they were dismissed due to their union membership. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the
complaint and the decision was affirmed by the NLRC. The CA reversed the decision,
hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether or not the policy of the employer banning spouses from working in the same
company is a valid exercise of management prerogative
RULING

No.

A company policy must be reasonable under the circumstances to qualify as a valid

exercise of management prerogative.

Art. 136 provides that it shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of
employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee 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 her
marriage.

Unless the employer can prove that the reasonable demands of the business require a
distinction based on marital status and there is no better available or acceptable policy
which would better accomplish the business purpose, an employer may not
discriminate against an employee based on the identity of the employees spouse. This
is known as the bona fide occupational qualification exception.

The concept of BONA FIDE OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION requires two factors to be

present:

1) that the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of

the job involved; and

2) that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting
the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.

In this case, there is no business necessity for the policy. The policy is premised on a
lame reason that employees married to each other will be less efficient.

Simbol was a Sheeting Machine Operator while Alma was an employee of the
Repacking Section. Wilfredo Comia was a Production Helper while Howard Comia was
a helper in the cutter-machine. In such a case, it would be absurd to think that the
dismissed employees would be less efficient considering that the married couples were
deployed in different departments.

Thus, they are ordered reinstated to their former positions without loss of their seniority
rights and entitled to their full back wages. Estrella was likewise ordered reinstated for
the failure of the company to prove that she categorically voluntarily resigned.