ANNE VERNADICE ARENA

1:00- 4:00 SUN

LLB III

STAR PAPER CORPORATION vs COMIA
(in favor of Labor)

FACTS:
At bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 03, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No.
73477 reversing the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed the ruling of the Labor
Arbiter. The following facts were presented:
(a) The respondents were all regular employees of the company;
(b) On October 27, 1993, Simbol was hired by the company. He met Alma Dayrit, also an employee of the company. He
married her on June 27, 1998. Prior to the marriage, Ongsitco advised the couple that should they decide to get married, one
of them should resign pursuant to a company policy promulgated in 1995. Simbol resigned on June 20, 1998.
(c) On February 5, 1997, Comia was hired by the company. She met Howard Comia, a co-employee whom she married on June
1, 2000. Ongsitco likewise reminded them pursuant to the aforementioned company policy. Comia resigned on June 30, 2000.
(d) Simbol and Comia alleged that they did not resign voluntarily; they were compelled to resign in view of an illegal company
policy.
(e) On July 29, 1994, Estrella was hired by the company. She met Luisito Zuniga, also a co-worker, whom petitioners claimed to
be a married man who got Estrella impregnated. The company allegedly could have terminated her services due to immorality
but she opted to resign on December 21, 1999.
(f) Estrella alleged that she had a relationship with co-worker Zuniga who misrepresented himself as a married but a separated
man. After he got her pregnant, she discovered that he was not separated. Thus, she severed her relationship with him to
avoid dismissal due to company policy.
(g) On November 30, 1999, Estrella met an accident and had to recuperate for twenty-one (21) days as advised by the doctor of
the Orthopaedic Hospital. On December 21, 1999 but she found out that her name was on hold at the gate. She was directed
to the personnel office and handed a memorandum that stated that she was being dismissed for immoral conduct. Estrella was
asked to submit an explanation but she was dismissed nonetheless. She resigned because she was in dire need of money and
resignation could give her the thirteenth month pay.
On May 31, 2001, Labor Arbiter Del Rosario dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.
On January, 11, 2002, NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.
On August 8, 2002, NLRC denied the respondents Motion for Reconsideration through a Resolution.
On August 3, 2004, the CA reversed the NLRC decision and declared that:
(a) The petitioners dismissal from employment was illegal:
(b) The private respondents are ordered to reinstate the petitioners to their former positions without loss of seniority rights
with full backwages from the time of their dismissal until actual reinstatement; and
(c) The private respondents are to pay petitioners attorneys fees amounting to 10% of the award and the cost of the suit.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding that the subject 1995 policy/ regulation is violative of the constituional rights towards
marriage and the family of employees and of Article 136 of the Labor Code
RULING:
No. The CA did not err in holding that the subject 1995 policy/ regulation is violative of the constitutional rights towards
marriage and the family of employees and or Article 136 of the Labor Code.
It is significant to note that in the case at bar, respondents were hired after they were found fit for the job, but were asked to
resign when they married a co-employee. Petitioners failed to show how the marriage of Simbol, then a Sheeting Machine
Operator, to Alma Dayrit, then an employee of the Repacking Section, could be detrimental to its business operations. Neither
did petitioners explain how this detriment will happen in the case of Wilfreda Comia, then a Production Helper in the Selecting
Department, who married Howard Comia, then a helper in the cutter-machine. The policy is premised on the mere fear that
employees married to each other will be less efficient. If we uphold the questioned rule without valid justification, the
employer can create policies based on an unproven presumption of a perceived danger at the expense of an employees right
to security of tenure.
Petitioners contend that their policy will apply only when one employee marries a co-employee, but they are free to marry
persons other than co-employees. The questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a
disproportionate effect and under the disparate impact theory, the only way it could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it
is reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit disproportionate, effect. The failure of petitioners to prove a legitimate
business concern in imposing the questioned policy cannot prejudice the employees right to be free from arbitrary
discrimination based upon stereotypes of married persons working together in one company.
Lastly, the absence of a statute expressly prohibiting marital discrimination in our jurisdiction cannot benefit the petitioners.
The protection given to labor in our jurisdiction is vast and extensive that we cannot prudently draw inferences from the
legislatures silence
[41]
that married persons are not protected under our Constitution and declare valid a policy based on a
prejudice or stereotype. Thus, for failure of petitioners to present undisputed proof of a reasonable business necessity, we rule
that the questioned policy is an invalid exercise of management prerogative. Corollarily, the issue as to whether respondents
Simbol and Comia resigned voluntarily has become moot and academic.

DUNCAN ASSOC. PTGWO vs. GLAXO WELLCOME PHILS. INC.
(in favor of Management Prerogative)

FACTS:
Tecson was hired by Glaxo as a medical representative on Oct. 24, 1995. Contract of employment signed by Tecson
stipulates, among others, that he agrees to study and abide by the existing company rules; to disclose to management any
existing future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees with competing drug companies and
should management find that such relationship poses a prossible conflict of interest, to resign from the company. Company's
Code of Employee Conduct provides the same with stipulation that management may transfer the employee to another
department in a non-counterchecking position or preparation for employment outside of the company after 6 months.
Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxo's products in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte area and entered into
a romantic relationship with Betsy, an employee of Astra, Glaxo's competition. Before getting married, Tecson's District
Manager reminded him several times of the conflict of interest but marriage took place in Sept. 1998. In Jan. 1999, Tecson's
superiors informed him of conflict of intrest. Tecson asked for time to comply with the condition (that either he or Betsy resign
from their respective positions). Unable to comply with condition, Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan-Surigao City-Agusan
del Sur sales area. After his request against transfer was denied, Tecson brought the matter to Glaxo's Grievance Committee
and while pending, he continued to act as medical representative in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area. On Nov. 15,
2000, the National Conciliation and Mediation Board ruled that Glaxo's policy was valid...
ISSUE:
Whether or not the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying employees of any competitor
company is valid.
RULING:
No reversible error can be ascribed to the Court of Appeals when it ruled that Glaxos policy prohibiting an employee from
having a relationship with an employee of a competitor company is a valid exercise of management prerogative.
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.
[20]
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.