Duncan Assoc. of Detailman-PTGWO vs. Glaxo Wellcome Phils., Inc.

438 SCRA 343

FACTS:
Tecson was hired by Glaxo as a medical representative on Oct. 24, 1995. Contract of
employment signed by Tecson stipulates, among others, that he agrees to study and
abide by the existing company rules; to disclose to management any existing future
relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees with competing
drug companies and should management find that such relationship poses a prossible
conflict of interest, to resign from the company. Company's Code of Employee Conduct
provides the same with stipulation that management may transfer the employee to
another department in a non-counterchecking position or preparation for employment
outside of the company after 6 months.
Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxo's products in the Camarines SurCamarines Norte area and entered into a romantic relationship with Betsy, an employee
of Astra, Glaxo's competition. Before getting married, Tecson's District Manager
reminded him several times of the conflict of interest but marriage took place in Sept.
1998. In Jan. 1999, Tecson's superiors informed him of conflict of interest. Tecson asked
for time to comply with the condition (that either he or Betsy resign from their respective
positions). Unable to comply with condition, Glaxo transferred Tecson to the ButuanSurigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area. After his request against transfer was denied,
Tecson brought the matter to Glaxo's Grievance Committee and while pending, he
continued to act as medical representative in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales
area. On Nov. 15, 2000, the National Conciliation and Mediation Board ruled that
Glaxo's policy was valid...
ISSUE:

Whether or not the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from
marrying employees of any competitor company is valid
HELD:
YES.
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing
strategies, and other confidential programs and information from competitors. The
prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor
companies upon Glaxo's employees is reasonable under the circumstances because
relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. That Glaxo
possesses the right to protect its economic interest cannot be denied.
It is the settled principle that the commands of the equal protection clause are
addressed only to the state or those acting under color of its authority. Corollarily, it has
been held in a long array of US Supreme Court decisions that the equal protection
clause erects to shield against merely privately conduct, however, discriminatory or
wrongful.
The company actually enforced the policy after repeated requests to the employee to
comply with the policy. Indeed the application of the policy was made in an impartial and
even-handed manner, with due regard for the lot of the employee.