Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Facts: policy. On November 30, 1999, she met an accident and was
advised by the doctor at the Orthopedic Hospital to recuperate
Petitioners Claim: for several days. When she returned to work, she found out that
Petitioner holds a company policy banning employees from her name was on-hold at the gate. She was later on informed
marrying coworkers, in line with another policy preventing that she was being dismissed for immoral conduct, through a
relatives to be in the same company. In the event of marriage, memorandum. She refused to sign the memorandum because
one must resign. she was on leave for several days and has not been given a
Simbol met and married Alma Dayrit. Theyre attention were chance to explain. She was allowed to explain but was still
called by Ongsitco, company manager. Simbol resigned dismissed. She later on signed a resignation letter in exchange
pursuant to the company policy. of her thirteenth month pay.
Wilfreda Comia met and married Howard Comia, a
coemployee. Ongsitco likewise reminded them of the company Respondents later filed a complaint claiming that their
policy. Wilfreda resigned. dismissal was in violation of the Labor Code.
Estrella met and had an intimate relationship with Luisito
Zuiga, also a co-worker.
Petitioners stated that Zuiga, a married man, got Estrella Held:
pregnant. The company allegedly could have terminated her
services due to immorality but she opted to resign. With the question of the Non-spouse policy and Anti-nepotism
The respondents each signed a Release and Confirmation policy, SC invoked from US State statutes using two theories
Agreement. regarding work discrimination:
disparate treatment
Respondets Claim: The plaintiff must prove that an employment policy is
Simbol and Comia allege that they did not resign voluntarily; discriminatory on its face. No-spouse employment policies
they were compelled to resign in view of an illegal company requiring an employee of a particular sex to either quit,
policy. transfer, or be fired are facially discriminatory.
SO ORDERED.
policy is an invalid exercise of management prerogative.
As to respondent Estrella, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
based their ruling on the singular fact that her resignation letter
was written in her own handwriting. Both ruled that her
resignation was voluntary and thus valid. The respondent court
failed to categorically rule whether Estrella voluntarily
resigned but ordered that she be reinstated along with Simbol
and Comia.
Estrella claims that she was pressured to submit a resignation
letter because she was in dire need of money. We examined
the records of the case and find Estrellas contention to
be more in accord with the evidence. While findings of fact by
administrative tribunals like the
NLRC are generally given not only respect but, at times, finality,
this rule admits of exceptions,42 as in the case at bar.