You are on page 1of 2

PT&T vs.

GR NO. 118978, May 23, 1997

FACTS: PT&T initially hired Grace de Guzman specifically as “Supernumerary Project Worker”,
for a fixed period 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.

On1991, 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. Labor Arbiter handed down
decision on 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.

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

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.