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