2. PT&T v. NLRC (KARA) 1.
De Guzman was hired as a reliever, specifically a Supernumerary
May 23, 1997 | Regalado, J. | Management Prerogative – Discrimination
against married women
PETITIONER: PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE
COMPANY
RESPONDENTS: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
and GRACE DE GUZMAN
SUMMARY: De Guzman was hired as a reliever, specifically a
Supernumerary Project Worker, for a fixed period by PT&T. She was
asked to join as a probationary employee. However, in her application, she
indicated SINGLE in the civil status even if she has contracted marriage a
few months earlier. She was reminded about the company’s policy of not
accepting married women for employment. De Guzman stated that she
was not aware of such policy and that she did not deliberately conceal her
civil status. Unconvinced, PT&T dismissed De Guzman. De Guzman filed
a case for illegal dismissal. Whether or not PT&T’s company policy is
discriminatory and runs afoul to the Labor Code? YES. An employer is
free to regulate, according to his discretion and best business judgment, all
aspects of employment, from hiring to firing, except in cases of unlawful
discrimination or those which may be provided by law. PT&T’s company
policy is not only a derogation of the provisions of Article 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, but it
likewise assaults good morals and public policy, tending as it does to
deprive a woman of the freedom to choose her status, a privilege that by
all accounts inheres in the individual as an intangible and inalienable right.
DOCTRINE: 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.
FACTS:
Project Worker, for a fixed period by PT&T. Under the Reliever
Agreement, her employment was to be immediately terminated
upon expiration of the agreed period.
2. In one occurrence, she was asked to join as a probationary
employee for a period of 150 days. She filled out a job application
and indicated in the portion of civil status that she was
“SINGLE,” although she had contracted marriage a few months
earlier. In subsequent Reliever Agreements, she made the same
representation.
3. When PT&T supposedly learned about the same, its branch
supervisor sent to De Guzman a memorandum requiring her to
explain the discrepancy. In that memorandum, she was reminded
about the company’s policy of not accepting married women for
employment. In her reply, De Guzman stated that she was not
aware of such policy and that she did not deliberately conceal her
civil status.
4. Unconvinced, PT&T dismissed De Guzman. The latter countered
by filing a COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, coupled
with a claim for non-payment of cost of living allowances (COLA)
before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. At the
preliminary conference, De Guzman volunteered information that
she had failed to remit a small some of money of her collections.
To remedy this, she executed a promissory note in favor of PT&T.
5. The Labor Arbiter ruled that De Guzman was a regular employee
who was illegally dismissed by PT&T. Her reinstatement, plus
payment of back wages and COLA were ordered. The NLRC
upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision and further ruled that De
Guzman was the subject of an unjust and unlawful discrimination
by her employer.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not PT&T’s company policy is discriminatory and runs
afoul to the Labor Code and no less than the Constitution itself? –
YES.
HELD:
1. PT&T’s company policy is not only a derogation of the provisions
of Article 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, but it likewise assaults good morals and public
 policy, tending as it does to deprive a woman of the freedom to
choose her status, a privilege that by all accounts inheres in the
individual as an intangible and inalienable right.
2. The Constitution and various laws recognize the protection to
labor, security of tenure, the role of women and the assurance of
equality of employment opportunities. In fact, Article 136 of the
Labor Code explicitly prohibits discrimination merely by reason of
the marriage of a female employee.
3. To fulfill this mandate, an employer is required, as a condition sine
qua non prior to severance of the employment ties of an individual
under his employ, to convincingly establish, through substantial
evidence, the existence of a valid and just cause in dispensing with
the services of such employee, labor being regarded as
constitutionally protected property.
4. On the other hand, it is recognized that regulation of manpower by
the company falls within the so-called management prerogatives,
which prescriptions encompass the matter of hiring, supervision of
workers, work assignments, working methods and assignments, as
well as regulations on the transfer of employees, lay-off of
workers, and the discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. As
put in a case, an employer is free to regulate, according to his
discretion and best business judgment, all aspects of
employment, from hiring to firing, except in cases of unlawful
discrimination or those which may be provided by law.
5. PT&T’s policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from
work any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul of the
test of, and the right against, discrimination, afforded all women
workers by our labor laws and by no less than the Constitution.
Contrary to PT&T’s assertion that it dismissed De Guzman from
employment on account of her dishonesty, the record discloses
clearly that her ties with the company were dissolved
principally because of the company’s policy that married
women are not qualified for employment in PT&T, and not
merely because of her supposed acts of dishonesty.