PT&T vs.

NLRC
Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company - petitioner
National Labor Relations Commission and Grace de Guzman - respondents
Topic: Family, Women, and Youth (Sec. 12-14)
Salient Features of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women ( CEDAW )
Facts:
Petitioner: seeks relief for extraordinary writ of certiorari and invokes concealment of civil status
and defalcation of company funds as grounds to terminate the services of an employee ( de
Guzman)
Respondent: De Guzman claims that her services was terminated for having contracted marriage
during her employment, which was prohibited by company policies. She asserts that she was
discriminated against in gross violation of the law - the Constitution and Art. 136 of the Labor
Code.
Art. 136 - Stipulation against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a
condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman shall 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 marriage
Facts:
- de Guzman was initially hired by petitioner as a reliever for a fixed period since an employee
was on maternity leave. This was again done when another employee went on leave as well. The
employment of De Guzman stipulated that her employment would be immediately terminate upon
expiration of the agreed period.
-respondent was then again invited to join the petitioner's company but this time as a probationary
employee with a period covering 150 days. In her applications, she filled out that she was single
even though she got married a few months earlier. Now it seems that her other applications (as a
reliever twice) also were represented as single.
-the branch manager of Baguio learned about her real status and sent her a memo requiring her
explanation of the discrepancy. In that memo, she was reminded that the company has a policy of
not accepting married women.
-De Guzman's reply countered that she was not aware of the company policy regarding married
women. Still, the petitioner dismissed her form service which the latter contested as illegal

dismissal.
- During the initial hearing with the Labor Arbiter, the petitioner also pointed out that de Guzman
failed to remit her collections thus also became a basis for her termination.
Court Decisions:
1. Labot Arbiter Ruling - illegal dismissal on account of her having contracted marriage in
violation of company rules
2. Appealed - NLRC - upheld the decision of the arbiter but modified the decision that de Guzman
deserved to be suspended for 3 months in view of the dishonest nature of her act
Subsequent motion for reconsideration was rebuffed by the NLRC
Issue: was the termination legal?
Held:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner's company policy
runs counter to Sec. 14, Art. II, and Sec. 3 and 14, Art XIII of the 1987 Constitution.
The court issued that corrective labor and social laws on gender inequality have emerged with
more frequency in the years since the Labor Code (like in Art 136) was enacted on May 1, 1974,
largely due to our country's commitment as a signatory to the United Nations CEDAW.