Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corp. vs.

NLRC

FACTS:

PT&T (Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Company) initially hired

Grace de Guzman specifically as “Supernumerary Project Worker”,
for a fixed period from November 21, 1990 until April 20, 1991 as
reliever for C.F. Tenorio who went on maternity leave. She was
again invited for employment as replacement of Erlina F. Dizon
who went on leave on 2 periods, from June 10, 1991 to July 1,
1991 and July 19, 1991 to August 8, 1991.

On September 2, 1991, de Guzman was again asked to join PT&T

as a probationary employee where probationary period will cover
150 days. She indicated in the portion of the job
application form under civil status that she was single
although she had contracted marriage a few months
earlier. When petitioner learned later about the marriage, its
branch supervisor, Delia M. Oficial, sent de Guzman a
memorandum requiring her to explain the discrepancy. Included
in the memorandum, was a reminder about the company’s
policy of not accepting married women for employment.
She was dismissed from the company effective January 29,
1992. Labor Arbiter handed down decision on November 23,
1993 declaring that petitioner illegally dismissed De Guzman, who
had already gained the status of a regular employee.
Furthermore, it was apparent that she had been discriminated on
account of her having contracted marriage in violation of
company policies.

ISSUE: Whether the alleged concealment of civil status can be

grounds to terminate the services of an employee.

HELD:

Article 136 of the Labor Code, one of the protective laws for
women, explicitly prohibits discrimination merely by reason of
marriage of a female employee. It is recognized that company is
free to regulate manpower and employment from hiring to firing,
according to their discretion and best business judgment, except
in those cases of unlawful discrimination or those provided by law.

PT&T’s policy of not accepting or disqualifying from work any

woman worker who contracts marriage is afoul of the right
against discrimination provided to all women workers by our labor
laws and by our Constitution. The record discloses clearly that de
Guzman’s ties with PT&T were dissolved principally because of
the company’s policy that married women are not qualified for
employment in the company, and not merely because of her
supposed acts of dishonesty.

The government abhors any stipulation or policy in the nature

adopted by PT&T. As stated in 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.”

The policy of PT&T is in derogation of the provisions stated in

Art.136 of the Labor Code on the right of a woman to be free from
any kind of stipulation against marriage in connection with her
employment and it likewise is contrary to good morals and public
policy, depriving a woman of her freedom to choose her status, a
privilege that is inherent in an individual as an intangible and
inalienable right. The kind of policy followed by PT&T
strikes at the very essence, ideals and purpose of
marriage as an inviolable social institution and ultimately,
family as the foundation of the nation. Such policy must be
prohibited in all its indirect, disguised or dissembled
forms as discriminatory conduct derogatory of the laws of
the land not only for order but also imperatively required.