Ana Rhea P.

Pleños
II-BSED-MATHEMATICS

CASE 1

DUNCAN ASSOC. OF DETAILMAN – PTGWO,

Vs
GLAXO WELLCOME PHILS., INC.
(438 SACRA 343)

FACTS:
On Oct. 25, 1995, petitioner Pedro Tecson was hired by respondent Glaxo Wellcome
Philippines, Inc. as a medical representative. Tecson was assigned to market Glaxo's products
in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area. Upon his employment, Tecson signed an
employment contract, wherein he agreed, among others, to study and abide by existing
company rules; to disclose to management any existing or future relationship by consanguinity
or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies; and if management
found that such relationship posed a possible conflict of interest, to resign from the company.
Tecson and Bettsy got married on September, 1998. Bettsy was an employee of a rival
pharmaceutical firm Astra Pharmaceuticals as the branch coordinator. The relationship,
including the after marriage, it made Glaxo disappointed. On January 1999, Tecson's superiors
informed him that his marriage to Bettsy had given ascent to a conflict of interest. Negotiations
ensued, with Tecson adverting to his wife's possible resignation from Astra, and Glaxo making
it known that they preferred to retain his services owing to his good performance. Yet no
resolution came to pass. In September 1999, Tecson applied for a transfer to Glaxo's milk
division, but his application was denied in view of Glaxo's "least-movement-possible" policy.
Then in November 1999, Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan
del Sur sales area. Tecson asked Glaxo to reconsider its decision, but his request was denied.
Tecson sought Glaxo’s reconsideration regarding his transfer and brought the matter to Glaxo’s
Grievance Committee. Glaxo, however, remained firm in its decision and gave Tescon until
February 7, 2000 to comply with the transfer order. Tecson defied the transfer order and
continued acting as medical representative in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area.
On Nov. 15, 2000, the Nat’l. Conciliation and Mediation Board ruled that Glaxo’s
policy was valid. Glaxo's policy on relationships between its employees and persons employed
with competitor companies, and affirming Glaxo's right to transfer Tecson to another sales
territory. This decision was assailed by petitioners before the Court of Appeals and the Court,
but for nothing.
ISSUE:
1.Whether or Not Glaxo’s policy against its employees marrying employees from competitor
companies is valid, and in not holding that said policy violates the equal protection clause of
the Constitution;
2.Whether Tecson was constructively dismissed.

RULING:
The record shows that Tecson was cognizant about the policy imposed by Glaxo
company, upon signing the contract, he voluntarily set his hands to follow the said policies.
Albeit employees are free to cultivate relationships w/ and marry persons of their own
choosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between the
employee and the company that may arise out of such relationships. After Tecson married
Bettsy, Glaxo gave him time to resolve the conflict. Glaxo even expressed its desire to retain
Tecson in its employ because of his satisfactory performance and suggested that his wife would
be the one to resign instead. Glaxo likewise acceded to his repeated requests for more time to
resolve the conflict of interest. When the problem could not be resolved after several years of
waiting, Glaxo was constrained to reassign Tecson to a sales area different from that handled
by his wife for Astra. Notably, the Court did not terminate Tecson from employment but only
reassigned him to another area where his home province, Agusan del Sur, was included. In
effecting Tecson’s transfer, Glaxo even considered the welfare of Tecson’s family. Clearly,
the foregoing dispels any suspicion of unfairness and bad faith on the part of Glaxo
Ana Rhea P. Pleños
II-BSED-MATHEMATICS

CASE 2
UNITED STATES
Vs
LUIS TORIBIO
(G. R. No. L-5060 January 26, 1910)

FACTS:
In the 1900s, Toribio sought a permit to slaughter his carabao in the town of Carmen,
Bohol province. His carabao is considered fit for farm work, and his request was denied results.
Even so, for human consumption, he was still slaughtering his carabao. Bohol's trial court found
that the respondent slaughtered or caused a carabao to be slaughtered without a permit from
the municipal treasurer of the municipality, in violation of Sections 30 and 33 of Law No. 1147,
a law regulating Large Cattle's registration, branding and slaughter. The act forbids the killing
of large cattle suitable for agricultural work or other human consumption purposes.
The appellant's counsel argued that the provisions of Act No. 1147 do not forbid or
penalize the slaughter of large cattle without a municipal treasure permit unless large cattle are
slaughtered outside the municipal slaughterhouse. They said that the prohibition and penalty
were restricted only to the large cattle slaughtered in the municipal slaughterhouse for the
prohibition found in section 30 and the penalty imposed in section 33 specified only the term
"at the municipal slaughterhouse."
They also argued that the act constitutes a takeover of property for public use in the
exercise of the eminent domain right without providing for the compensation of owners, and it
is an undue and unauthorized exercise of the state's police power because it deprives them of
enjoying their private property.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the prohibition and penalty imposed by Act No. 1147 is limited to
slaughtering large cattle at the municipal slaughterhouse.

2.Whether or not Act. No. 1147, regulating the registration, branding and slaughter of large
cattle, is an undue and unauthorized exercise of police power.
RULING:
1. Which would tend to make certain legislative provisions abortive and defeat the purpose
sought by the legislature by its enactment which would tend to make certain legislative
provisions abortive and defeat the purpose sought by the legislature by its enactment.
Accordingly, the court is of the opinion that sections 30 and 33 of the Act prohibit and penalize
the slaughtering or slaughtering of large cattle at any place for human consumption without the
permit provided for in section 30.

2. Act No. 1147 is not a seizure of the land for public use within the scope of the Constitution,
but is a just and lawful exercise of the legislature's power to regulate and limit the specific use
of the property that is incompatible with the public's rights. All land is purchased and held on
the implicit condition that it is not used in such a way as to damage others ' equal rights or
seriously compromise the community's public rights and interests.
Ana Rhea P. Pleños
II-BSED-MATHEMATICS

CASE 3

LUPO L. LUPANGCO, RAYMOND S. MANGKAL, NORMAN A. MESINA,

ALEXANDER R. REGUYAL, JOCELYN P. CATAPANG, ENRICO V. REGALADO,
JEROME O. ARCEGA, ERNESTOC. BLAS, JR., ELPEDIO M. ALMAZAN, KARL
CAESAR R. RIMANDO, petitioner

vs.

COURT OF APPEALS and PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION, respondent.

(G.R. No. 77372 April 29, 1988)

FACTS:

On or about 6 October 1986, the respondent Professional Regulation Commission

(PRC) released Resolution No. 105 as part of its "Additional Guidelines for Review" to all
those seeking admission to take accounting licensing examinations. No examinee shall attend
any review class, briefing, conference or the like conducted by, or shall receive any hand-out,
review material, or any tip from any school, college or university, or any review center or the
like or any reviewer, lecturer, instructor official or employee of any of the aforementioned or
similar institutions during the three days immediately preceding every examination day
including examination day. Any examinee who breaches this instruction shall be subject to the
penalties laid down in Section 8, Art. III Commission Rules and Regulations.

16 October 1986, all the reviewers preparing to take the licensing exams in the
accounting schedule on 25 October and 2 November of the same year, sent on their own behalf
to all others similarly situated to them, the Regional Trial Court of Manila has lodged a plea
for injunction with the issuance of a letter of preliminary injunction against the PRC in order
to prevent the latter from implementing the above-mentioned resolution and to find the same
unconstitutional.

On 21 October 1987, the respondent PRC filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that the
lower court had no authority to review and enforce its ruling. In an order issued on 21 October
1987, the lower court declared that it had jurisdiction to try the case and directed the respondent
commission to enact and execute Resolution No 105, which it considered unconstitutional. Not
satisfied therewith, respondent PRC, on November 10, 1986, filed with the Court of Appeals

ISSUE:

1.Whether or not Resolution No. 105 is constitutional.

RULING:

It's not a constitution. The questioned resolution was adopted for a praiseworthy
purpose that is "to preserve the integrity and purity of the licensing examinations." However,
its good purpose cannot be a cloak to hide its constitutional infirmities. The unreasonableness
is more evident in that one who is caught committing the prohibited acts even without any ill
motives will be prevented from taking future examinations conducted by the respondent PRC
Resolution No. 105 is not only unreasonable and arbitrary, but also infringes the right of
freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the examinees. Respondent PRC has no authority
to dictate to the applicants how to train for the licensing exams. They cannot be held back from
taking all the necessary legal steps to ensure that their ambition to become public accountants
is fulfilled. They have every right to use their skills in their efforts to achieve success. They
should have the freedom to gain useful knowledge to support their personal growth.