11. PT&T v. NLRC

PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH & TELEPHONE COMPANY VS. NLRC FACTS: • •

in the loss of confidence and justified her termination. Grace de Guzman was hired three times as a reliever for PT&T, all contracts ended at periods stipulated in the contract. On September 2, 1991 she was asked to join the company as a probationary employee, the period to cover is 150 days. In the job application form she indicated that she was single although she was married.

•

She made the same representation in the two successive reliever agreements, when the branch supervisor official learned about this she sent a memorandum requiring her to explain the discrepancy also reminding her about the company's policy of not accepting married women for employment.

•

PT&T claims that she concealed her marital status and her admission of misappropriation of company funds, thus a ground to dismiss her. She said that she was not aware of PT&T's policy regarding married women and that she had not deliberately hidden her true civil status.

•

PT&T, dismissed her from the company. Grace contested by a complaint for illegal dismissal, with claims for non-payment of cost of living allowances (COLA), before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the National Labor Relations Commission in Baguio City.

•

Labor Arbiter declared that Grace was illegally dismissed. They consider the misappropriation of fund as a mere addition to strengthen its case for dismissal there was no showing that she deliberately misappropriated such. Her reinstatement, plus payment of back wages and COLA, was ordered. She believed that ground for dismissal was insufficient, and she was discriminated for contracting marriage in violation of company rules.

•

PT&T appealed to NLRC. They believed that there was unjust and unlawful discrimination by PT&T and that they ordered for her reinstatement but she should be suspended for three months for her dishonest acts which should not be condoned was given by NLRC.

•

On appeal to SC, PT&T asserts that it dismissed Grace on account of her dishonesty. They added that they had nothing against marriage; but concealment of it constitutes dishonesty on the part of Grace which resulted

ISSUE: •

WON the company can validly enforce a policy against married women?

HELD: •

No. Prejudice against womankind has been pervasive as in the field of labor, especially on the matter of equal employment opportunities and standards.

•

In the Philippines, women is traditionally considered as falling within the vulnerable groups of workers who must be safeguarded with preventive and remedial social legislation against discriminatory and exploitative practices in hiring, training, benefits, promotion and retention.

•

Section 14, Article II (8) on the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, expressly recognizes the role of women in nation-building and commands the State to ensure, at all times, the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

•

Section 3 of Article XIII (9) requires the State to afford full protection to labor and to promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all, including an assurance of entitlement to security of all workers.

•

Article 136 of Labor Code explicitly prohibits discrimination merely by reason of the marriage of a female employee.The government abhors any stipulation or policy in the nature of that adopted by petitioner PT & T.

•

PT&T’s policy of not accepting as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul to the Constitutional provision on equal protection but also in the fundamental policy of the State towards marriage.

•

Grace act of concealing her status is not characterized as willful or in bad faith as she was moved to act the way she did because she wanted to retain a permanent job in a stable company.

•

She was forced by that very same illegal company policy into misrepresenting her civil status so as not to be disqualified from work. In concealing her status the three-month suspension imposed by respondent NLRC must be upheld to prevent the idea or presumption that such act should be condoned.

•

While loss of confidence is a just cause for termination of employment, it should not be pretend. There must be an actual breach of duty committed by the employee; it should not be used as a plot for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified.

•

PT&T’s policy 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.

•

PT&T’s policy strikes the very essence, ideals and purpose of marriage as an inviolable social institution and, ultimately, of the family as the foundation of the nation.