Labor Law I | Atty. Balino (AY.
2023-2024)
PT & T v. NLRC, May 23, 1997
Part II: Employment Relationship; Topic: Management Prerogative
Doctrine:
The policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work
any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul of the test of,
and the right against, discrimination, afforded all women workers by
our labor laws (particularly Art. 136), and by no less than the
Constitution.
Facts:
 After being hired by Phil. Telegraphic & Telephone Company
for a reliever position, Grace de Guzman was accepted for a
probationary period of 150 days in Sept. 2021.
 In the job application form, she indicated “single” as her civil
status although she had contracted marriage a few months
earlier.
 Learning about the misrepresentation in Jan. 1992 (almost
nearing the end of 150-days probationary period), PT& T asked
de Guzman to explain and reminded her about the company’s
policy of not accepting married women for employment.
 De Guzman responded that she was not aware of the said policy,
and that she had not deliberately hidden her true civil status.
 Unconvinced, PT& T dismissed De Guzman, resulting to the
filing of complaint for illegal dismissal before Regional
Arbitration Branch of NLRC.
 LA and NLRC rendered decision in favor of De Guzman. PT&T
elevated the case to SC to seek relief through extraordinary writ
of certiorari, claiming that the dismissal was due to De
Guzman’s dishonesty.
1
Arellano University School of Law
Issue:
Is the policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from
work any woman worker who contracts marriage valid? (NO)
Ruling:
Policy:
The policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work
any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul of the test of,
and the right against, discrimination, afforded all women workers by
our labor laws, particularly Art. 136, and by no less than the
Constitution.
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 employee 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 her marriage.
The policy likewise assaults good morals and public policy, tending
as it does to deprive a woman of the freedom to choose her status, a
privilege that by all accounts inheres in the individual as an
intangible and inalienable right. Hence, while it is true that the
parties to a contract may establish any agreements, terms, and
conditions that they may deem convenient, the same should not be
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
Carried to its logical consequences, it may even be said that
petitioner’s policy against legitimate marital bonds would encourage
 Labor Law I | Atty. Balino (AY. 2023-2024)
Arellano University School of Law

illicit or common-law relations and subvert the sacrament of

marriage.

The court also highlighted the ruling in Zialcita, et al. v. Philippine

Air Lines where the policy of Philippine Air Lines requiring that
prospective flight attendants must be single and that they will be
automatically separated from the service once they marry was
declared void.

Dishonesty (additional only in case asked):

In response to PT&T’s contention that De Guzman’s dismissal was
due to dishonesty, the court held that:

Contrary to PT&T’s claim, the record (memorandum sent by PT&T

+ termination notice letter) discloses that De Guzman was dismissed
principally because of the company’s policy that married women are
not qualified for employment in PT&T, and not merely because of
her supposed acts of dishonesty.

De Guzman’s act of concealing the true nature of her status from

PT&T could not be properly characterized as willful or in bad faith
as she was moved to act the way she did mainly because she wanted
to retain a permanent job in a stable company. While loss of
confidence is a just cause for termination of employment, it should
not be simulated. It must rest on an actual breach of duty committed
by the employee and not on the employer’s caprices. Furthermore, it
should never be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper,
illegal, or unjustified.

Separate Opinion/s:
Name, concurring/dissenting: