SECONDDIVISION

[G.R.No.162994.September17,2004]

DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMANPTGWO and PEDRO A. TECSON,

petitioners,vs.GLAXOWELLCOMEPHILIPPINES,INC.respondent.

RESOLUTION
TINGA,J.:

ConfrontingtheCourtinthispetitionisanovelquestion,withconstitutionalovertones,involving
the validity of the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying
employeesofanycompetitorcompany.
[1]
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision dated May 19, 2003 and the
[2]
ResolutiondatedMarch26,2004oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.62434.
Petitioner Pedro A. Tecson (Tecson) was hired by respondent Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.
(Glaxo) as medical representative on October 24, 1995, after Tecson had undergone training and
orientation.
Thereafter, Tecson signed a contract of employment which stipulates, among others, that he
agrees to study and abide by existing company rules to disclose to management any existing or
future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with coemployees or employees of competing drug
companiesandshouldmanagementfindthatsuchrelationshipposesapossibleconflictofinterest,to
resignfromthecompany.
The Employee Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly provides that an employee is expected to
inform management of any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co
employees or employees of competing drug companies. If management perceives a conflict of
interest or a potential conflict between such relationship and the employees employment with the
company, the management and the employee will explore the possibility of a transfer to another
department in a noncounterchecking position or preparation for employment outside the company
aftersixmonths.
TecsonwasinitiallyassignedtomarketGlaxosproductsintheCamarinesSurCamarinesNorte
salesarea.
Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with Bettsy, an employee of Astra
[3]
Pharmaceuticals (Astra),acompetitorofGlaxo.BettsywasAstrasBranchCoordinatorinAlbay.She
supervised the district managers and medical representatives of her company and prepared
marketingstrategiesforAstrainthatarea.
Even before they got married, Tecson received several reminders from his District Manager
regarding the conflict of interest which his relationship with Bettsy might engender. Still, love
prevailed,andTecsonmarriedBettsyinSeptember1998.
In January 1999, Tecsons superiors informed him that his marriage to Bettsy gave rise to a
conflictofinterest.Tecsons superiors reminded him that he and Bettsy should decide which one of
themwouldresignfromtheirjobs,althoughtheytoldhimthattheywantedtoretainhimasmuchas
possiblebecausehewasperforminghisjobwell.
 Tecsonrequestedfortimetocomplywiththecompanypolicyagainstenteringintoarelationship
withanemployeeofacompetitorcompany.HeexplainedthatAstra,Bettsysemployer,wasplanning
to merge with Zeneca, another drug company and Bettsy was planning to avail of the redundancy
package to be offered by Astra.With Bettsys separation from her company, the potential conflict of
interest would be eliminated. At the same time, they would be able to avail of the attractive
redundancypackagefromAstra.
InAugust1999,Tecsonagainrequestedformoretimeresolvetheproblem.InSeptember1999,
Tecson applied for a transfer in Glaxos milk division, thinking that since Astra did not have a milk
division, the potential conflict of interest would be eliminated. His application was denied in view of
Glaxosleastmovementpossiblepolicy.
In November 1999, Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan CitySurigao CityAgusan del Sur
salesarea.TecsonaskedGlaxotoreconsideritsdecision,buthisrequestwasdenied.
Tecson sought Glaxos reconsideration regarding his transfer and brought the matter to Glaxos
GrievanceCommittee.Glaxo,however,remainedfirminitsdecisionandgaveTesconuntilFebruary
7, 2000 to comply with the transfer order. Tecson defied the transfer order and continued acting as
medicalrepresentativeintheCamarinesSurCamarinesNortesalesarea.
During the pendency of the grievance proceedings, Tecson was paid his salary, but was not
issued samples of products which were competing with similar products manufactured by Astra. He
wasalsonotincludedinproductconferencesregardingsuchproducts.
Becausethepartiesfailedtoresolvetheissueatthegrievancemachinerylevel,theysubmitted
thematterforvoluntaryarbitration.GlaxoofferedTecsonaseparationpayofonehalf()monthpayfor
everyyearofservice,oratotalofP50,000.00buthedeclinedtheoffer.OnNovember15,2000,the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) rendered its Decision declaring as valid Glaxos
policyonrelationshipsbetweenitsemployeesandpersonsemployedwithcompetitorcompanies,and
affirmingGlaxosrighttotransferTecsontoanothersalesterritory.
Aggrieved, Tecson filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals assailing the NCMB
Decision.
OnMay19,2003,theCourtofAppealspromulgateditsDecisiondenyingthePetitionforReview
on the ground that the NCMB did not err in rendering its Decision. The appellate court held that
Glaxos policy prohibiting its employees from having personal relationships with employees of
[4]
competitorcompaniesisavalidexerciseofitsmanagementprerogatives.
Tecson filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the appellate courts Decision, but the motion was
[5]
deniedbytheappellatecourtinitsResolutiondatedMarch26,2004.
Petitionersfiledtheinstantpetition,arguingthereinthat(i)theCourtofAppealserredinaffirming
theNCMBsfindingthattheGlaxospolicyprohibitingitsemployeesfrommarryinganemployeeofa
competitorcompanyisvalidand(ii)theCourtofAppealsalsoerredinnotfindingthatTecsonwas
constructively dismissed when he was transferred to a new sales territory, and deprived of the
[6]
opportunitytoattendproductsseminarsandtrainingsessions.
Petitioners contend that Glaxos policy against employees marrying employees of competitor
companies violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it creates invalid
distinctions among employees on account only of marriage. They claim that the policy restricts the
[7]
employeesrighttomarry.
They also argue that Tecson was constructively dismissed as shown by the following
circumstances: (1) he was transferred from the Camarines SurCamarines Norte sales area to the
ButuanSurigaoAgusan sales area, (2) he suffered a diminution in pay, (3) he was excluded from
attendingseminarsandtrainingsessionsformedicalrepresentatives,and(4)hewasprohibitedfrom
[8]
promotingrespondentsproductswhichwerecompetingwithAstrasproducts.
InitsComment on the petition, Glaxo argues that the company policy prohibiting its employees
from having a relationship with and/or marrying an employee of a competitor company is a valid
exercise of its management prerogatives and does not violate the equal protection clause and that
Tecsons reassignment from the Camarines NorteCamarines Sur sales area to the Butuan City
[9]
SurigaoCityandAgusandelSursalesareadoesnotamounttoconstructivedismissal.
Glaxoinsiststhatasacompanyengagedinthepromotionandsaleofpharmaceuticalproducts,it
has a genuine interest in ensuring that its employees avoid any activity, relationship or interest that
mayconflictwiththeirresponsibilitiestothecompany.Thus,itexpectsitsemployeestoavoidhaving
personal or family interests in any competitor company which may influence their actions and
decisionsandconsequentlydepriveGlaxooflegitimateprofits.Thepolicyisalsoaimedatpreventing
[10]
acompetitorcompanyfromgainingaccesstoitssecrets,proceduresandpolicies.
Itlikewiseassertsthatthepolicydoesnotprohibitmarriagepersebutonlyproscribesexistingor
future relationships with employees of competitor companies, and is therefore not violative of the
equal protection clause. It maintains that considering the nature of its business, the prohibition is
[11]
basedonvalidgrounds.
AccordingtoGlaxo,TecsonsmarriagetoBettsy,anemployeeofAstra,posedarealandpotential
conflictofinterest.Astrasproductswereindirectcompetitionwith67%oftheproductssoldbyGlaxo.
Hence, Glaxos enforcement of the foregoing policy in Tecsons case was a valid exercise of its
[12]
managementprerogatives. Inanycase,Tecsonwasgivenseveralmonthstoremedythesituation,
[13]
andwasevenencouragednottoresignbuttoaskhiswifetoresignfromAstrainstead.
GlaxoalsopointsoutthatTecsoncannolongerquestiontheassailedcompanypolicybecause
whenhesignedhiscontractofemployment,hewasawarethatsuchpolicywasstipulatedtherein.In
saidcontract,healsoagreedtoresignfromrespondentifthemanagementfindsthathisrelationship
[14]
withanemployeeofacompetitorcompanywouldbedetrimentaltotheinterestsofGlaxo.
Glaxo likewise insists that Tecsons reassignment to another sales area and his exclusion from
seminarsregardingrespondentsnewproductsdidnotamounttoconstructivedismissal.
It claims that in view of Tecsons refusal to resign, he was relocated from the Camarines Sur
Camarines Norte sales area to the ButuanCitySurigaoCity and Agusan del Sur sales area. Glaxo
asserts that in effecting the reassignment, it also considered the welfare of Tecsons family. Since
Tecsons hometown was in Agusan del Sur and his wife traces her roots to Butuan City, Glaxo
assumedthathistransferfromtheBicolregiontotheButuanCitysalesareawouldbefavorableto
himandhisfamilyashewouldberelocatingtoafamiliarterritoryandminimizinghistravelexpenses.
[15]

Inaddition,GlaxoaversthatTecsonsexclusionfromtheseminarconcerningthenewantiasthma
drugwasduetothefactthatsaidproductwasindirectcompetitionwithadrugwhichwassoontobe
sold by Astra, and hence, would pose a potential conflict of interest for him. Lastly, the delay in
Tecsonsreceiptofhissalesparaphernaliawasduetothemixupcreatedbyhisrefusaltotransferto
theButuanCity sales area (his paraphernalia was delivered to his new sales area instead of Naga
[16]
CitybecausethesupplierthoughthealreadytransferredtoButuan).
The Court is tasked to resolve the following issues: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in
ruling that Glaxos policy against its employees marrying employees from competitor companies is
valid, and in not holding that said policy violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution (2)
WhetherTecsonwasconstructivelydismissed.
TheCourtfindsnomeritinthepetition.
 The stipulation in Tecsons contract of employment with Glaxo being questioned by petitioners
provides:

10.Youagreetodisclosetomanagementanyexistingorfuturerelationshipyoumayhave,eitherby
consanguinityoraffinitywithcoemployeesoremployeesofcompetingdrugcompanies.Shoulditposea
possibleconflictofinterestinmanagementdiscretion,youagreetoresignvoluntarilyfromtheCompanyasa
matterofCompanypolicy.
[17]

ThesamecontractalsostipulatesthatTecsonagreestoabidebytheexistingcompanyrulesof
[18]
Glaxo, and to study and become acquainted with such policies. In this regard, the Employee
HandbookofGlaxoexpresslyinformsitsemployeesofitsrulesregardingconflictofinterest:

1.ConflictofInterest

Employeesshouldavoidanyactivity,investmentrelationship,orinterestthatmayruncountertothe
responsibilitieswhichtheyoweGlaxoWellcome.

Specifically,thismeansthatemployeesareexpected:

a.Toavoidhavingpersonalorfamilyinterest,financialorotherwise,inanycompetitorsupplierorother
businesseswhichmayconsciouslyorunconsciouslyinfluencetheiractionsordecisionsandthusdeprive
GlaxoWellcomeoflegitimateprofit.

b.TorefrainfromusingtheirpositioninGlaxoWellcomeorknowledgeofCompanyplanstoadvancetheir
outsidepersonalinterests,thatoftheirrelatives,friendsandotherbusinesses.

c.Toavoidoutsideemploymentorotherinterestsforincomewhichwouldimpairtheireffectivejob
performance.

d.ToconsultwithManagementonsuchactivitiesorrelationshipsthatmayleadtoconflictofinterest.

1.1.EmployeeRelationships

Employeeswithexistingorfuturerelationshipseitherbyconsanguinityoraffinitywithcoemployeesof
competingdrugcompaniesareexpectedtodisclosesuchrelationshiptotheManagement.Ifmanagement
perceivesaconflictorpotentialconflictofinterest,everyeffortshallbemade,togetherbymanagementandthe
employee,toarriveatasolutionwithinsix(6)months,eitherbytransfertoanotherdepartmentinanoncounter
checkingposition,orbycareerpreparationtowardoutsideemploymentafterGlaxoWellcome.Employeesmust
[19]
bepreparedforpossibleresignationwithinsix(6)months,ifnoothersolutionisfeasible.

No reversible error can be ascribed to the Court of Appeals when it ruled that Glaxos policy
prohibiting an employee from having a relationship with an employee of a competitor company is a
validexerciseofmanagementprerogative.
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and
otherconfidentialprogramsandinformationfromcompetitors,especiallysothatitandAstraarerival
companiesinthehighlycompetitivepharmaceuticalindustry.
Theprohibitionagainstpersonalormaritalrelationshipswithemployeesofcompetitorcompanies
uponGlaxosemployeesisreasonableunderthecircumstancesbecauserelationshipsofthatnature
mightcompromisetheinterestsofthecompany.In laying down the assailed company policy, Glaxo
onlyaimstoprotectitsinterestsagainstthepossibilitythatacompetitorcompanywillgainaccessto
itssecretsandprocedures.
 ThatGlaxopossessestherighttoprotectitseconomicinterestscannotbedenied.Nolessthan
the Constitution recognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforce such a policy to protect its
[20]
right to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth. Indeed, while our laws
endeavortogivelifetotheconstitutionalpolicyonsocialjusticeandtheprotectionoflabor,itdoesnot
mean that every labor dispute will be decided in favor of the workers.The law also recognizes that
managementhasrightswhicharealsoentitledtorespectandenforcementintheinterestoffairplay.
[21]

[22]
As held in a Georgia, U.S.A case, it is a legitimate business practice to guard business
confidentialityandprotectacompetitivepositionbyevenhandedlydisqualifyingfromjobsmaleand
femaleapplicantsoremployeeswhoaremarriedtoacompetitor.Consequently,thecourtruledthan
anemployerthatdischargedanemployeewhowasmarriedtoanemployeeofanactivecompetitor
[23]
did not violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court pointed out that the policy was
applied to men and women equally, and noted that the employers business was highly competitive
andthatgaininginsideinformationwouldconstituteacompetitiveadvantage.
ThechallengedcompanypolicydoesnotviolatetheequalprotectionclauseoftheConstitutionas
petitioners erroneously suggest. It is a settled principle that the commands of the equal protection
[24]
clauseareaddressedonlytothestateorthoseactingundercolorofitsauthority. Corollarily,ithas
beenheldinalongarrayofU.S.SupremeCourtdecisionsthattheequalprotectionclauseerectsno
[25]
shield against merely private conduct, however, discriminatory or wrongful. The only exception
[26]
occurs when the state in any of its manifestations or actions has been found to have become
[27]
entwined or involved in the wrongful private conduct. Obviously, however, the exception is not
presentinthiscase.Significantly,thecompanyactuallyenforcedthepolicyafterrepeatedrequeststo
theemployeetocomplywiththepolicy.Indeed,theapplicationofthepolicywasmadeinanimpartial
andevenhandedmanner,withdueregardforthelotoftheemployee.
In any event, from the wordings of the contractual provision and the policy in its employee
handbook,itisclearthatGlaxodoesnotimposeanabsoluteprohibitionagainstrelationshipsbetween
its employees and those of competitor companies. Its employees are free to cultivate relationships
withandmarrypersonsoftheirownchoosing.Whatthecompanymerelyseekstoavoidisaconflict
of interest between the employee and the company that may arise out of such relationships. As
succinctlyexplainedbytheappellatecourt,thus:

Thepolicybeingquestionedisnotapolicyagainstmarriage.Anemployeeofthecompanyremainsfreeto
marryanyoneofhisorherchoosing.Thepolicyisnotaimedatrestrictingapersonalprerogativethatbelongs
onlytotheindividual.However,anemployeespersonaldecisiondoesnotdetracttheemployerfromexercising
[28]
managementprerogativestoensuremaximumprofitandbusinesssuccess...

TheCourtofAppeals also correctly noted that the assailed company policywhichformspartof

respondentsEmployeeCodeofConductandofitscontractswithitsemployees,suchasthatsigned
by Tecson, was made known to him prior to his employment. Tecson, therefore, was aware of that
restriction when he signed his employment contract and when he entered into a relationship with
Bettsy.SinceTecsonknowinglyandvoluntarilyenteredintoacontractofemploymentwithGlaxo,the
stipulationsthereinhavetheforceoflawbetweenthemand,thus,shouldbecompliedwithingood
[29]
faith. Heisthereforeestoppedfromquestioningsaidpolicy.
TheCourtfindsnomeritinpetitionerscontentionthatTecsonwasconstructivelydismissedwhen
hewastransferredfromtheCamarinesNorteCamarinesSursalesareatotheButuanCitySurigao
CityAgusandelSursalesarea,andwhenhewasexcludedfromattendingthecompanysseminaron
new products which were directly competing with similar products manufactured by Astra.
Constructivedismissalisdefinedasaquitting,aninvoluntaryresignationresortedtowhencontinued
employment becomes impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely when there is a demotion in rank or
diminution in pay or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes
[30]
unbearabletotheemployee. Noneoftheseconditionsarepresentintheinstantcase.Therecord
doesnotshowthatTecsonwasdemotedorundulydiscriminateduponbyreasonofsuchtransfer.As
found by the appellate court, Glaxo properly exercised its management prerogative in reassigning
TecsontotheButuanCitysalesarea:

...Inthiscase,petitionerstransfertoanotherplaceofassignmentwasmerelyinkeepingwiththepolicyofthe
companyinavoidanceofconflictofinterest,andthusvalidNotethat[Tecsons]wifeholdsasensitive
supervisorypositionasBranchCoordinatorinheremployercompanywhichrequireshertoworkinclose
coordinationwithDistrictManagersandMedicalRepresentatives.HerdutiesincludemonitoringsalesofAstra
products,conductingsalesdrives,establishingandfurtheringrelationshipwithcustomers,collection,monitoring
andmanagingAstrasinventoryshethereforetakesanactiveparticipationinthemarketwarcharacterizedasitis
bystiffcompetitionamongpharmaceuticalcompanies.Moreover,andthisissignificant,petitionerssales
territorycoversCamarinesSurandCamarinesNortewhilehiswifeissupervisingabranchofheremployerin
Albay.Theproximityoftheirareasofresponsibility,allinthesameBicolRegion,renderstheconflictofinterest
notonlypossible,butactual,aslearningbyonespouseoftheothersmarketstrategiesintheregionwouldbe
inevitable.[Managements]appreciationofaconflictofinterestisthereforenotmerelyillusoryandwantingin
[31]
factualbasis
[32]
InAbbottLaboratories(Phils.),Inc.v.NationalLaborRelationsCommission, whichinvolveda
complaintfiledbyamedicalrepresentativeagainsthisemployerdrugcompanyforillegaldismissalfor
allegedlyterminatinghisemploymentwhenherefusedtoaccepthisreassignmenttoanewarea,the
Courtupheldtherightofthedrugcompanytotransferorreassignitsemployeeinaccordancewithits
operationaldemandsandrequirements.TherulingoftheCourttherein,quotedhereunder,alsofinds
applicationintheinstantcase:

Bytheverynatureofhisemployment,adrugsalesmanormedicalrepresentativeisexpectedtotravel.He
shouldanticipatereassignmentaccordingtothedemandsoftheirbusiness.Itwouldbeapoordrugcorporation
whichcannotevenassignitsrepresentativesordetailmentonewmarketscallingforopeningorexpansionorto
areaswheretheneedforpushingitsproductsisgreat.Moresoifsuchreassignmentsarepartoftheemployment
[33]
contract.

As noted earlier, the challenged policy has been implemented by Glaxo impartially and
disinterestedlyforalongperiodoftime.Inthecaseatbar,therecordshowsthatGlaxogaveTecson
several chances to eliminate the conflict of interest brought about by his relationship with Bettsy.
Whentheirrelationshipwasstillinitsinitialstage,TecsonssupervisorsatGlaxoconstantlyreminded
him about its effects on his employment with the company and on the companys interests. After
Tecson married Bettsy, Glaxo gave him time to resolve the conflict by either resigning from the
companyoraskinghiswifetoresignfromAstra.GlaxoevenexpresseditsdesiretoretainTecsonin
itsemploybecauseofhissatisfactoryperformanceandsuggestedthatheaskBettsytoresignfrom
hercompanyinstead.Glaxolikewiseaccededtohisrepeatedrequestsformoretimetoresolvethe
conflictofinterest.Whentheproblemcouldnotberesolvedafterseveralyearsofwaiting,Glaxowas
constrained to reassign Tecson to a sales area different from that handled by his wife for Astra.
Notably,theCourtdidnotterminateTecsonfromemploymentbutonlyreassignedhimtoanotherarea
where his home province, Agusan del Sur, was included. In effecting Tecsons transfer, Glaxo even
considered the welfare ofTecsons family.Clearly, the foregoing dispels any suspicion of unfairness
[34]
andbadfaithonthepartofGlaxo.
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIEDforlackofmerit.Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
AustriaMartinezandCallejo,Sr.,JJ.,concur.
Puno(Chairman),J.,intheresult.
 ChicoNazario,J.,onleave.

[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and concurred in by Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and
MercedesGozoDadole.Rollo,pp.2232.
[2]
Duncan Association of DetailmanPTGWO and Pedro A. Tecson, petitioners, v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.,
respondent.
[3]
NowAstraZenecaPharmaceuticals,Inc.
[4]
Rollo,pp.2832.
[5]
Id.at55.
[6]
Id.at9.
[7]
Id.at911.
[8]
Id.at1417.
[9]
Id.at96112.
[10]
Id.at99100.
[11]
Id.at101102.
[12]
Id.at102103.
[13]
Id.at102104.
[14]
Id.at104105.
[15]
Id.at64.
[16]
Id.at106110.
[17]
SeeDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsRollo,pp.2324.
[18]
ItemNo.6ofTecsonsemploymentcontractcitedbytheCourtofAppealsinitsDecision,Id.
[19]
ExcerptofGlaxosEmployeeHandbook,AnnexAofrespondentsComment,Id.at114.
[20]
Section3,ArticleXIIIoftheConstitutionprovides:
TheStateshallregulatetherelationsbetweenworkersandemployers,recognizingtherightoflabortoitsjustshareinthe
fruitsofproductionandtherightofenterprisestoreasonablereturnsoninvestments,andtoexpansionandgrowth.
[21]
Sta.CatalinaCollegev.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.144483,November19,2003.
[22]
Emoryv. Georgia Hospital ServiceAssociation (1971), DC Ga., 4 CCH EPD 7785, 4 BNA FEP Cas 891, affd (CA5)
446F2d897,4CCHEPD7786Cited45AmJr2dSec.469.
[23]
42 USCS 2000e2002e17. Title VII prohibits certain employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint
labormanagementtrainingcommitteesfromdiscriminatingagainstapplicantsandemployeesonthebasisofraceorcolor,
religion,sex,nationalorigin,oroppositiontodiscriminatorypractices.
ThereisnosimilarlegislationinthePhilippines.
[24]
Averyv.MidlandCounty,390US474,20L.Ed2d45,88SCt1114,onremand(Tex)430SW2d487Cooperv.Aaron,
358US1,3LEd2d5,78SCt1401.
[25]
District of Columbiav. Carter, 409 US 418, 34 L.Ed.2d 613, 93 S. Ct. 602, 35 L.Ed.2d 694, 93 S. Ct. 1411 Moose
LodgeNo.107v.Irvis,407US163,32L.Ed.2d627,92S.Ct.1965UnitedStatesv.Price,383US787,16L.Ed.2d267,
86S.Ct.1152Burtonv.WilmingtonParkingAuthority,365US715,6L.Ed.2d45,81S.Ct.856Shelleyv.Kraemer,334
US1,92L.Ed.1161,68S.Ct.836,3ALR2d441UnitedStatesv.Classic,313US299,85L.Ed1368,61S.Ct.1031,86
L.Ed 565, 62 S. Ct. 51 Nixon v. Condon, 286 US 73, 76 L.Ed. 984, 52 S. Ct.484, 88 ALR 458 IowaDes Moines Nat.
Bankv.Bennet,284US239,76L.Ed265,52S.Ct.133Corriganv.Buckley,271US323,70L.Ed.969,46S.Ct.521
U.S.Adickesv.S.H.Kress&Co.,N.Y.,90S.Ct.1598,398U.S.144,26L.Ed.2d142.
[26]
TheequalprotectionclausecontainedintheFourteenthAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitutionisarestrictiononthestate
governments and operates exclusively upon them. It does not extend to authority exercised by the Government of the
UnitedStates.16AAMJUR2d742.
[27]
Gilmorev.Montgomery,417US556,41LEd2d304,94SCt2416Evansv.Newton,382US296,15LEd2d373,86
SCt486Andersonv.Martin,375US399,11LEd2d430,84SCt454Petersonv.Greenville,373US244,10LEd2d
323,83SCt1119Burtonv.WilmingtonParkingAuthority,supranote25.
[28]
DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,Rollo,p.28.
[29]
Article1159,CivilCode.SeeNationalSugarTradingand/ortheSugarRegulatoryAdministrationv.PhilippineNational
Bank, G.R. No. 151218, January 18, 2003, 396 SCRA 528 Pilipinas Hino, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126570,
August18,2000,338SCRA355.
[30]
Leonardov. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. Nos. 125303, and 126937, June 16, 2000, 333 SCRA
589.
[31]
Rollo,pp.3031.
[32]
G.R.No.L76959,October12,1987,154SCRA713.
[33]
Id.at719.
[34]
DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,Rollo,pp.2427.