View full case

PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH v. NLRC

FACTS:

Grace de Guzman was initially hired by Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company (PT&T) as a reliever for a fixed period. After her reliever period ended, she was asked to join PT&T as a probationary employee. During the application process, she indicated that she was single despite having contracted marriage a few months earlier. PT&T later learned about her marriage and sent her a memorandum requiring an explanation. In her reply, de Guzman claimed that she was not aware of the company's policy regarding married women and did not deliberately hide her civil status. Nonetheless, PT&T dismissed de Guzman from the company, leading her to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of cost of living allowances. The labor arbiter declared that de Guzman was illegally dismissed by PT&T and ordered her reinstatement and payment of back wages and allowances. The NLRC affirmed the labor arbiter's decision, with the modification of a three-month suspension for de Guzman. PT&T's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting them to file a special civil action challenging the decisions of the labor arbiter and NLRC.

This case involves the policy of a company, Philippine Telegraph & Telephone (PT&T), not to accept or consider married women as qualified for employment. The company's policy was communicated to the employee, private respondent, through a memorandum and termination notice. The employee's termination was primarily based on the company's policy against hiring married women, with her alleged acts of dishonesty being secondary. The court noted that various laws and provisions in the Constitution recognize the rights of women in the workplace and prohibit discrimination based on sex and marital status.

The petitioner company, PT&T, terminated the employment of the private respondent based on the ground of loss of confidence. The private respondent, however, alleged that her termination was unlawful as it was based on her concealment of her marital status, which she did out of fear of being disqualified from work due to an illegal company policy. The petitioner argued that the private respondent's concealment constituted dishonesty, thereby justifying her dismissal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the dismissal of Grace de Guzman was motivated by her contracting marriage, which petitioner PT&T prohibits in its company policies.

  2. Whether PT&T's policy of not accepting married women for employment is lawful under the Philippine Labor Code.

  3. Whether Grace de Guzman's concealment of her marital status constitutes a valid ground for her dismissal from employment.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal of Grace de Guzman was primarily due to PT&T’s discriminatory company policy against married women, which is unlawful under Article 136 of the Labor Code. The claim that she was dismissed due to dishonesty in concealing her marital status was considered secondary and not the true reason for her termination.

  2. PT&T’s policy of not hiring or retaining married women is explicitly prohibited by Article 136 of the Labor Code and is thus unlawful.

  3. Despite the concealment of marital status by Grace de Guzman, the Court noted that this act was driven by the unlawful policy of the employer. While her act of concealment constituted dishonesty, this did not justify her dismissal when viewed against the backdrop of the employer's illegal discriminatory policy against married women. She was entitled to reinstatement with back wages minus a three-month suspension.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Protection against Discrimination: Article 136 of the Labor Code prohibits any employment stipulation against marriage for female employees, whether as a condition for hiring or continued employment.

  2. Security of Tenure: Employees who have gained regular status cannot be dismissed without just and valid cause.

  3. Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ): Rules that restrict the employment of women on the basis of marital status must meet strict scrutiny and be justified as essential for job performance, which was not proven in this case.

  4. Regulation of Management Prerogatives: While employers have the right to regulate their workforce, this prerogative does not extend to acts of unlawful discrimination.

  5. Public Policy and Morals: Employment policies must align with public morals and policies; a policy against marriage violates these principles by infringing on personal freedoms and societal values.