Case #8: Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company (Petitioner)
vs. NLRC and Grace de Guzman (Respondents)
Facts of the Case:
Grace de Guzman was hired by PT & T as a reliever or a
“Supernumerary Project Worker” from a fixed period of November
21, 1990 until April 20, 1991. She signed the Reliever Agreement
stating that employment was to be immediately terminated upon
expiration of stated period. Her services as a reliever were engaged
by the petitioner two other times from June to August. On
September 2, 1991, she was asked once again to join PT&T as a
probationary employee with a probationary period covering 150
days. In the job application form, she indicated that her civil status
was single despite having been married on May 26, 1991 and this
was noted to have been present in her other Reliever Agreements as
well. It was on January 15, 1992 in which she received a
memorandum stating that the company has a policy of not accepting
married woman for employment. She stated that she was unaware
of this and did not intend to hide her civil status. 13 days later, she
was dismissed from the company despite gaining a regular employee
status at this time. Additionally, she failed to remit the amount of
Php 2,380.75 from her collections which led to her execution of a
promissory note under formal proceedings. PT&T claimed that her
dismissal is due to these two instances.
Issue/s:
1. Is the policy of PT&T stating that married women are not to
be employed against the law?
2. Is her dismissal from the company without just or authorized
cause?
Held:
The petition of PT&T is dismissed for lack of merit. In the
Labor Code, Article 136 explicitly states that it is unlawful for an
employer to require women to not be married as a condition to
employment. The stipulation that marriage would deem one’s status
as an employee as dismissed is illegal. The discrimination or
prejudice of a woman merely by reason of marriage is one that is
violative of the Labor Code thus rendering the termination of
employment void.
Contrary to the petitioner’s claim that Grace de Guzman’s
dismissal is due to her dishonesty and misappropriated company
funds, the court holds that the record shows that her employment
was dissolved principally because married woman do not qualify as
PT&T employees. This could be evidenced by the memorandum and
termination notice she received as it states that she violated the
company’s policy against marriage rather than bringing importance
to her dishonesty. They claimed that this falsified information in her
application form leads to a loss of confidence in her which justifies
her dismissal. The dangers of accepting policies against marriage as
done by PT & T is that it strikes at the “very essence of marriage as
an inviolable social institution and, ultimately, of the family as the
foundation of the nation.” Due to her status as a regular employee
that has been dismissed without just cause, she is entitled to
“reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges
and to full back wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or
their monetary equivalent.” However, a three-month suspension
would be imposed so as to avoid condoning the behavior of Ms. De
Guzman in misrepresenting her civil status for fear of being
disqualified from work.