Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. Vs NLRC May 23, 1997
Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. Vs NLRC May 23, 1997
*
G.R. No. 118978. May 23, 1997.
PHILIPPINE **
TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE
COMPANY, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION and GRACE DE GUZMAN,
respondents.
* SECOND DIVISION.
597
598
lish 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 illicit or common-law
relations and subvert the sacrament of marriage.
Same; Same; The relations between capital and labor are not
merely contractual, impressed as they are with so much public
interest that the same should yield to the comm on good.—
Parenthetically, the Civil Code provisions on the contract of labor
state that the relations between the parties, that is, of capital and
labor, are not merely contractual, impressed as they are with so
much public interest that the same should yield to the common
good. It goes on to intone that neither capital nor labor should
visit acts of oppression against the other, nor impair the interest
or convenience of the public. In the final reckoning, the danger of
just such a policy against marriage followed by petitioner PT&T is
that it strikes at the very essence, ideals and purpose of marriage
as an inviolable social institution and, ultimately, of the family as
the foundation of the nation. That it must be effectively
interdicted here in all its indirect, disguised or dissembled forms
as discriminatory conduct derogatory of the laws of the land is not
only in order but imperatively required.
______________
600
______________
601
_______________
602
9
XIII (the progenitor whereof dates back to both the 1935
and 1973 Constitution) pointedly requires the State to
afford full protection to labor and to promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for
all, including an assurance of entitlement to tenurial
security
10
of all workers. Similarly, Section 14 of Article
XIII mandates that the State shall protect working
women through provisions for opportunities that w ould
enable them to reach their full potential.
2. Corrective labor and social laws on gender inequality
have emerged with more frequency in the years since the
Labor Code was enacted on May 1, 1974 as Presidential
Decree No. 442, largely due to our country’s commitment as
a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the
Elimina-
______________
9 The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized or unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities,
including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled
to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They
shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting
their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between
workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes of
settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production
and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investment, and to
expansion and growth (Sec. 3, Art. XIII).
10 The State shall protect working women by providing safe and
healthful working conditions, taking into account their maternal
functions, and such facilities and opportunities that will enhance their
welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the service of the
nation (Sec. 14, Art. XIII ).
603
______________
604
______________
605
19
missal, and recall of employees. As put in a case, an
employer is free to regulate, according to his discretion and
best business judgment, all aspects of employment, “from
hiring to firing,” except in cases of unlawful
20
discrimination
or those which may be provided by law.
In the case at bar, petitioner’s 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 and by no less than the Constitution.
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion that it dismissed private
respondent from employment on account of her dishonesty,
the record discloses clearly that her ties with the company
were dissolved 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.
That it was so can easily be seen from the memorandum
sent to private respondent by Delia M. Oficial, the branch
supervisor of the company, with the reminder, in the words
of the latter, that “you’re fully aware that the company is
not accepting married women 21
employee (sic), as it was
verbally instructed to you.” Again, in the termination
notice sent to her by the same branch supervisor, private
respondent was made to understand that her severance
from the service was not only by reason of her concealment
of her married status
______________
19 Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 102993, July 14, 1995, 246 SCRA
271; Oriental Mindoro Electric Cooperative, Inc. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 111905, July 31, 1995, 246 SCRA
794; Nuez vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No.
107574, December 28, 1994, 239 SCRA 518; San Miguel Corporation vs.
Ubaldo, et al., G.R. No. 92859, February 1, 1993, 218 SCRA 293.
20 NAFLU vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No.
90739, October 3, 1991, 202 SCRA 346.
21 Quoted in the Decision of the Third Division, NLRC, in NLRC Case
No. RAB-CAR-02-0042-92, Annex B of petition; Rollo, 35. See also Annex
J, supra, Fn. 4.
606
_______________
607
_______________
609
28
the usual trade and business of PT&T. The primary
standard of determining regular employment is the
reasonable connection between the activity performed by
the employee
29
in relation to the business or trade of the
employer.
As an employee who had therefore gained regular
status, and as she had been dismissed without just cause,
she is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges and to full back wages, inclusive
of allowances 30
and other benefits or their monetary
equivalent. However, as she had undeniably committed an
act of dishonesty in concealing her status, albeit under the
compulsion of an unlawful imposition of petitioner, the
three-month suspension imposed by respondent NLRC
must be upheld to obviate the impression or inference that
such act should be condoned. It would be unfair to the
employer if she were to return to its fold without any
sanction whatsoever for her act which was not totally
justified. Thus, her entitlement to back wages, which shall
be computed from the time her compensation was withheld
up to the time of her actual reinstatement, shall be reduced
by deducting therefrom the amount corresponding to her
three months suspension.
4. The government, to repeat, abhors any stipulation or
policy in the nature of that adopted by petitioner PT&T.
The Labor Code states, in no uncertain terms, as follows:
28 Art. 280, Labor Code; see PLDT vs. Montemayor, et al., G.R. No. 88626,
October 12, 1990, 190 SCRA 427.
29 De Leon vs . National Labor Relations Comm ission, et al., G.R. No. 70705,
August 21, 1989, 176 SCRA 615.
30 Molave Tours Corp. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No.
112909, November 24, 1995, 250 SCRA 325; see Art. 279, Labor Code, as amended
by Republic Act No. 6715.
610
______________
611
612
_______________
613
________________
614
38
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 contrary39to 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 illicit or
common-law relations and subvert the sacrament of
marriage.
Parenthetically, the Civil Code provisions on the
contract of labor state that the relations between the
parties, that is, of capital and labor, are not merely
contractual, impressed as they are with so much public 40
interest that the same should yield to the common good. It
goes on to intone that neither capital nor labor should visit
acts of oppression against the 41other, nor impair the interest
or convenience of the public. In the final reckoning, the
danger of just such a policy against marriage followed by
petitioner PT&T is that it strikes at the very essence,
ideals and purpose of marriage as an inviolable social
institution and,42
ultimately, of the family as the foundation
of the nation. That it must be effectively interdicted here
in all its indirect, disguised or dissembled forms as dis-
_______________
38 Tolentino, A., Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. III, 1979 ed., 235;
see Art. 874, Civil Code.
39 Art. 1306, Civil Code.
40 Art. 1700, Civil Code; see Macleod & Co. of the Philippines vs.
Progressive Federation of Labor, 97 Phil. 205 (1955).
41 Art. 1701, Civil Code.
42 The 1987 Constitution provides:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen
the family as a basic autonomous social institution. x x x (Sec. 15, Art. II).
The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
development (Sec. 1, Art. XV).
Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and
shall be protected by the State (Sec. 2, Art. XV).
615
Petition dismissed.
——o0o——