PTTC vs NLRC Digest

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 !upernumerary Pro"ect #or$er% for a fi'ed period from Novemer * *++, until -pril , *++* as reliever for C./. Tenorio 0ho 0ent on maternity leave. !he 0as again invited for employment as replacement of 1rlina /. 2izon 0ho 0ent on leave on  periods from 3une *, *++* to 3uly * *++* and 3uly *+ *++* to -ugust 4 *++*.

5n !eptemer  *++* de Guzman 0as again as$ed to "oin PT&T as a proationary employee 0here proationary period 0ill cover *6, days. !he indicated in the portion of the "o application form under civil status that she 0as single although she had contracted marriage a fe0 months earlier. #hen petitioner learned later aout the marriage its ranch supervisor 2elia 7. 5ficial sent de Guzman a memorandum re8uiring her to e'plain the discrepancy. 9ncluded in the memorandum 0as a reminder aout the company:s company:s policy of not accepting married 0omen for employment. !he 0as dismissed from the company effective 3anuary + *++. Laor -riter -riter handed do0n decision on Novemer ; *++; declaring that petitioner illegally dismissed 2e Guzman 0ho had already gained the status of a regular employee. /urthermore it 0as apparent that she had een discriminated on account of her having contracted marriage in violation of company policies.

ISSUE:

#hether the alleged concealment of civil status can e grounds to terminate the

services of an employee.

HELD:

 -rticle *;< of the Laor Code one of the protective la0s for 0omen e'plicitly prohiits discrimination merely y reason of marriage of a female employee. 9t is recognized that company is free to regulate manpo0er and employment from hiring to firing according to their discretion and est usiness "udgment e'cept in those cases of unla0ful discrimination or those provided y la0.

PT&T:s policy of not accepting or dis8ualifying from 0or$ any 0oman 0or$er 0ho contracts marriage is afoul of the right against discrimination provided to all 0omen 0or$ers y our laor la0s and y our Constitution. The record discloses clearly that de Guzman:s ties 0ith PT&T 0ere dissolved principally ecause of the company:s policy that married 0omen are not 8ualified for employment in the company and not merely ecause of her supposed acts of dishonesty.

The government ahors any stipulation or policy in the nature adopted y PT&T. -s stated in the laor code=

-RT. *;<. !tipulation against marriage. > 9t shall e unla0ful for an employer to re8uire as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a 0oman shall not get married or to stipulate e'pressly or tacitly that upon getting married a 0oman employee shall e deemed resigned or separated or to actually dismiss discharge discriminate or other0ise pre"udice a 0oman employee merely y reason of marriage.%

The policy of PT&T is in derogation of the provisions stated in -rt.*;< of the Laor Code on the right of a 0oman to e free from any $ind of stipulation against marriage in connection 0ith her employment and it li$e0ise is contrary to good morals and pulic policy depriving a 0oman of her freedom to choose her status a privilege that is inherent in an individual as an intangile and inalienale right. The $ind of policy follo0ed y PT&T stri$es at the very essence ideals and purpose of marriage as an inviolale social institution and ultimately family as the foundation of the nation. !uch policy must e prohiited in all its indirect disguised or dissemled forms as

discriminatory conduct derogatory of the la0s of the land not only for order ut also imperatively re8uired.