PHIL. TELEGRAPH and TELEPHONE CO. v. NLRC Sec.
Sec. 14, Art XIII of the Constitution mandates that the State shall protect working
G.R. No. 118978 / MAY 24, 1997 / REGALADO, J./LABOR 1-WOMEN UNDER THE CONSTITUTION/ RL
Aurellano
NATURE Special Civil Action: Certiorari
PETITIONERS Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company
RESPONDENTS NLRC and Grace de Guzman
SUMMARY. Respondent de Guzman was dismissed by Phil. Telegraph because she was mar-
ried, and Phil. Telegraph was not accepting married women employees. Phil. Telegraph
says, no, it was because she concealed her civil status. Court says, how can she reveal her
civil status if it will get her dismissed? Besides, this prohibition against married women thing
is illegal, anyway. Court cites LC 136, which states that it is illegal for an employer to require
as a condition of employment that a woman shall not get married, among other statutes.
DOCTRINE. So many legal things prohibiting the discrimination of employers against mar-
ried women. See ratio 1.
FACTS.
Grace de Guzman was initially hired as a reliever she had to work in place of women who
went on maternity leave. Then, on September 2, 1991, she was asked to be a probationary
employee for 150 days.
She indicated in the job application form that she was single, although she contracted
marriage a few months earlier. She put the same thing on her previous job applications,
despite her marriage.
When petitioner Phil Telegraph found out about her marriage, they, through a memoran-
dum from their branch supervisor, asked her to explain, and reminded her that Phil Tele-
graph does not accept married women for employment (as verbally instructed to de Guz-
man)
De Guzman replied that she did not know about the policy and that she had not deliber-
ately hidden her true civil status.
Phil Telegraph was not convinced. They dismissed her.
De Guzman filed for illegal dismissal. In the preliminary conference, de Guzman volun-
teered the information that she had failed to remit P2380.75, and executed a promissory
note to pay the same
Labor Arbiter ruled for de Guzman, and mandated her reinstatement (she had gained
regular status) with payment of back wages and cost of living allowance. NLRC affirms,
but suggests that de Guzman should be suspended for three months for her dishonesty.
Phil Telegraph takes it to the SC
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON Phil Telegraphs policy of not accepting married women is valid NO
All of the statutes, jurisprudence, good morals and public policy state that a compa-
ny/corporation cannot dismiss a woman because she is married.
Sec. 14, Art II of the Constitution recognizes the role of women in nation building and
commands the State t ensure the fundamental equality before the law o women and
men
women through provision for opportunities that would enable them to reach the full
potential
So many RAs protecting women from discrimination and exploitation (and Regalado
cites almost all of them; maybe, thats all of them)
LC 132 ensures the right of women to be provided with facilities and standards which
the SOLE may establish to ensure their health and safety.
LC 135 recognizes a womans right against discrimination with respect to terms and
condition of employment on account of sex.
LC 136-It shall be unlawful foran employer to require as a condition of employment
orcontinuation of employment that a woman shall not get married,or to stipulate
expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, awoman employee shall be deemed
resigned or separated, or toactually employee merely by reason of marriage.
Zialcita et. al v. PAL LC 136 is reproduced verbatim from Sec 8 of PD 148, which s the
Women and Child Labor Law. Article 136 is not intended to apply only to women em-
ployed inordinary occupations, or it should have categorically expressed so.The sweep-
ing intendment of the law, be it on special or ordinaryoccupations, is reflected in the
whole text and supported Article 135 that speaks of nondiscriminationon the employ-
mentof women.
Gualberto, et al v. Marinduque Mining lack of facilities for married women not an ex-
cuse for terminating female employees when they get pregnant. It is discriminatory
chauvinism.
American jurisprudence employment rules that forbid or restrict the employment of
married women, but do not apply to married men, have been held to violate the main
federal statute that prohibits discrimination against employees and applicants on the
basis of sex.
Good morals and public policy it deprives a woman of the freedom to choose her sta-
tus, which is an inalienable right. Also, Phil Telegraphs policy may encourage illicit or
common-law relations an subvert the sacrament of marriage
Civll Code relations between capital and labor are impressed with public interest that
they should yield to the common good.
2. WON de Guzmans concealment of her true civil status and her failure to remit some
collections merit her dismissal - NO
De Guzman was practically forced to misrepresent her civil status for fear of being disqual-
ified from work. While loss of confidence is a just cause for termination of employ-
ment, it should not be simulated. Furthermore, it should never be used as a subter-
fuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified.
The defalcation of funds complained of by Phil Telegraph is obviously a mere after-
thought, as it was de Guzman herself who brought the issue up and she executed a prom-
issory note anyway.
DECISION.
Petition dismissed, with double costs.