You are on page 1of 5

Star Paper Recit Ready Digest Facts Issue Held

Corporation v
Simbol Star Paper Corporation, a
(no reasonable paper product company,
business appealed to the SC a CA
necessity for decision holding the
banning resignations of their
spouses from employees due to the
working in company policy
same prohibiting spouses from
company) working in their company
illegal. They argue that
the company policy was a
valid management
prerogative. On the other
hand respondents argue
that the policy is a
violation of Art. 136 of the
Labor Code as well as
certain provisions in the
Constitution and Civil
Code which protect
laborers. The SC ruled in
favor of the respondents,
saying that there is no
reasonable business
necessity for prohibiting
spouses from working in
the same company. The
premise that spouses
working in the same
company would be
ineffective is not
compelling enough as to
amount to an exception to
the bona fide occupational
qualification.
Star Paper Corporation, a W/N the company policy of No. Based on the reasonableness
company in the business of Star Paper of prohibiting doctrine, there is no valid/reasonable
manufacturing paper products, spouses from working in their business necessity for prohibiting
filed a petition for certiorari in the company is a valid exercise spouses from working in the same
SC, appealing the decision of the of management prerogative. company or for asking either of two
CA, which ruled in favor of herein employees to resign after getting
respondents. The CA previously W/N said company policies married. The presumption that spouses
reversed the decision of the NLRC violate Article II, Sec. 18 and working together in the same company
and Labor Arbiter, which initially Article XIII, Sec. 3 of the would be ineffective is not an exception
sided with herein petitioners. Constitution, Article 1700 of to the bona fide occupational
the Civil Code, and Art. 136 qualification which would allow
Simbol, a sheeting machine of the Labor Code discriminatory policies only when the
operator for the company, was prohibition directly relates to an
hired in 1993. He met Article II, Sec. 18. The employees ability to do his/her job well.
Dayrit, employee of the repacking State affirms labor as a
section, and married her in 1998. primary social economic To justify a bona fide occupational
Ongsitco, manager of the force. It shall protect the qualification, the employer must prove
Personnel and Administration rights of workers and two factors:
Department, warned them of the promote their welfare. 1. that the employment qualification is
company policy which prohibits reasonably related to the essential
spouses from working in the same Article XIII. Sec. 3. The operation of the job involved
company and compels either State shall afford full 2. that there is a factual basis for
spouse to resign in lieu of said protection to labor, local and believing that all or substantially all
policy. As a result of this, Simbol overseas, organized and persons meeting the qualification would
resigned. unorganized, and promote be unable to properly perform the duties
full employment and equality of the job.
Likewise, Wilfreda Comia, of employment opportunities
Production Helper in the Selecting for allThey shall be entitled Yes. It is immaterial that there is no law
Department, was hired in 1997. to security of tenure, humane expressly prohibiting marital status
She met Howard Comia, helper in conditions of work, and a discrimination in our country. The
the cutter machine, whom she living wage protection given to labor in our
married in 2000. Pursuant to the jurisdiction is vast and extensive that we
company policy, Wilfreda resigned Art. 1700. The relation cannot prudently draw inferences from
in 2000. between capital and labor the legislatures silence that married
are not merely contractual. persons are not protected under our
Estrella, another employee, was They are so impressed with Constitution and declare valid a policy
hired in 1994 and met Zuniga, a public interest that labor based on a prejudice of our stereotype.
coworker who had gotten her contracts must yield to the The disparate impact of the company
pregnant. It turned out that common good. Therefore, policy, albeit not violative of Art. 136 on
Zuniga was a married man. such contracts are subject to its face, has the tendency of being
According to the company, they the special laws on labor discriminatory on female spouses.
could have terminated her for unions, collective bargaining,
immorality but she opted to resign strikes and lockouts, closed As for Estrellas resignation, it was held
instead. shop, wages, working from the evidence shown that she had
conditions, hours of labor no choice but to sign her resignation
Based from the foregoing, it would and similar subjects. papers in exchange for her 13-month
appear that all employees pay. Upon her return to work from a 21-
voluntarily resigned from their Art. 136. It shall be day leave, she found out that she was
positions. Additionally, they had unlawful for an employer already banned from working from the
signed a Release and to require as a condition company for immoral practices anyway.
Confirmation Agreement. of employment or Her removal was considered an illegal
However, their statements continuation of dismissal.
regarding their dismissal reflected employment that a
otherwise. They filed a complaint woman employee shall Decision of the CA affirmed.
against the company for unfair not get married, or to
labor practice, constructive stipulate expressly or
dismissal, and separation pay and tacitly that upon getting
attorneys fees, alleging that their married a woman
dismissal was tantamount to a employee shall be
violation of Article 136 of the deemed resigned or
Labor Code. The Labor Arbiter and separated, or to actually
NLRC both ruled that the assailed dismiss, discharge,
company policy was a valid discriminate or otherwise
exercise of the companys prejudice a woman
management prerogative. Upon employee merely by
appeal to the CA, the CA reversed reason of her marriage.
the lower courts decisions and
ruled that their dismissals
amounted to illegal dismissal.