Case #2 PT&T Digest

G.R. No.
118978 May 23, 1997 PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY (PT & T), * petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and GRACE DE GUZMAN, respondents. (Regalado, J.) *Petition on Certiorari, invoked by PT&T *PT & T, petitioner, claims that concealment of civil status and defalcation of company funds are grounds to terminate the services of an employee. *Grace de Guzman(GG), respondent- employee who claims that her services were terminated because she got married during her employment, which in the PT&T company policies, and is a form of discrimination, specifically a violation of Art. 136 of the Labor Code. Facts: Nov.21,1990- April 20,1991.. GG was initially hired as a reliever, a supernumerary project worker o Reliever Agreement- termination upon expiration of agreed period. Her services as a reliever were renewed for two periods (Jun.10,1991-July 1,1991; July19,1991Aug.8,1991) then finally on Sept. 2,1991, she was asked to join the company as a probationary employee (150 days probation period). o In the application form, she indicated her civil status as single when in fact, she was married a few months earlier in May 26,1991) January 15, 1992- branch supervisor, Delia M. Oficial sends a memorandum to GG, asking her to explain the discrepancy in her app.forms. GG replied that she did not know of the company policy regarding married women. PT&T, unconvinced, dismissed her. GG files complaint for illegal dismissal, and claim for COLA (cost of living allowances.) at the NLRC, Baguio Branch. During the preliminary conferences, GG admits to have failed to remit 2,380php of her collections, but eventually she was able to pay the company after the conferences. o Nov. 23,1993- Labor Arbiter, Irenarco R. Rimando declares respondent GG, as a regular employee: (take note of the probationary period 150 days from Sept.2-Jan.29date when separation papers were officially handed to GG)
was illegally dismissed. insufficient grounds for termination... presence of discrimination should be reinstated
Appeal to NLRC (Public respondent) upholds labor arbiters decisions (3) , but qualified that GG be suspended for 3 months because of her dishonesty. o PT&T motion for reconsideration, denied. Hence the petition for certiorari. Issue: WON the claim of PT&T that they fired GG because of her dishonesty + misappropriation of company funds and not for her married status is credible.
Held: NLRC (Public Respondent) decision is upheld, emphasis on the 3 month suspension due to dishonesty. PT&T petition is dismissed for lack of merit, with double costs against them. Rationale: Constitution (Sec.14,Art.II; Sec.3, Art.XIII) Labor Code, RA 6727- Prohibits discrimination against women with respect to terms and conditions of employment, promotion and training opportunities. As put in a case, an employer is free to regulate accdg. to his discretion and best business judgment, all aspects of employment, from hiring to firing, except in cases of unlawful discrimination of those which may be provided by law. o the record discloses clearly that her ties with the company were dissolved primarily bec. of the companys policy that married women are not qualified for employment and not merely because of her supposed acts of dishonesty *EVIDENCE: memorandum sent to GG by Delia M. Oficial which indicated the words; youre fully aware that the company is not accepting married women employee(sic), as it was verbally instructed to you. GG could not have been said to have acted in bad faith. She acted out of fear of being disqualified from work; her company didnt give her a choice. As for the misappropriation of funds, that is a different case altogether, which was settled
anyway, since GG already paid the amount she misappropriated. It is also questionable that GGs dismissal coincided with her regularization which lead the SC to theorize that PT&T was trying to prevent her from earning security of tenure. (hmmm.. )
Important Citations: *Art. 136 of the Labor Code. 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.
**Zialcita, et al. vs. Philippine Air Lines, 33a decision that emanated from the Office of the President. There, a 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, it being violative of the clear mandate in Article 136

Case #2 PT&T Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case #2 PT&T Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case #2 PT&T Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

You might also like