24. Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Co vs NLRC (1997) G.R.

118978
ART. 136. Stipulation against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a
on!ition of employment or ontinuation of employment that a woman shall not get marrie!" or
to stipulate e#pressly or taitly that upon getting marrie!" a woman employee shall be !eeme!
resigne! or separate!" or to atually !ismiss" !isharge" !isriminate or otherwise pre$u!ie a
woman employee merely by reason of marriage.%
Fa!s" &T'T (&hilippine Telegraph ' Telephone )ompany* initially hire! +rae !e +u,man
speifially as Supernumerary &ro$et -or.er%" for a fi#e! perio! from /o0ember 11" 1223
until April 13" 1221 as relie0er for ).4. Tenorio who went on maternity lea0e. She was again
in0ite! for employment as replaement of 5rlina 4. 6i,on who went on lea0e on 1 perio!s" from
7une 13" 1221 to 7uly 1" 1221 an! 7uly 12" 1221 to August 8" 1221.
9n September 1" 1221" !e +u,man was again as.e! to $oin &T'T as a probationary
employee where probationary perio! will o0er 1:3 !ays. She in!iate! in the portion of the $ob
appliation form un!er i0il status that she was single although she ha! ontrate! marriage a
few months earlier. -hen petitioner learne! later about the marriage" its branh super0isor"
6elia ;. 9fiial" sent !e +u,man a memoran!um requiring her to e#plain the !isrepany.
Inlu!e! in the memoran!um" was a remin!er about the ompany<s poliy of not aepting
marrie! women for employment. She was !ismisse! from the ompany effeti0e 7anuary 12"
1221. =abor Arbiter han!e! !own !eision on /o0ember 13" 1223 !elaring that petitioner
illegally !ismisse! 6e +u,man" who ha! alrea!y gaine! the status of a regular employee.
4urthermore" it was apparent that she ha! been !isriminate! on aount of her ha0ing
ontrate! marriage in 0iolation of ompany poliies.
See.ing relief through the e#traor!inary writ of certiorari" petitioner &hilippine
Telegraph an! Telephone )ompany (hereafter" &T'T* in0o.es the allege! onealment of i0il
status an! !efalation of ompany fun!s as groun!s to terminate the ser0ies of an
employee. That employee" herein pri0ate respon!ent +rae !e +u,man" ontrarily argues that
what really moti0ate! &T'T to terminate her ser0ies was her ha0ing ontrate! marriage !uring
her employment" whih is prohibite! by petitioner in its ompany poliies. She thus laims that
she was !isriminate! against in gross 0iolation of law" suh a prosription by an employer being
outlawe! by Artile 136 of the =abor )o!e.
#ss$e" -9/ the poliy of not aepting or onsi!ering as !isqualifie! from wor. any woman
wor.er who ontrats marriage is 0ali!>
R$ling? Artile 136 of the =abor )o!e" one of the proteti0e laws for women" e#pliitly prohibits
!isrimination merely by reason of marriage of a female employee. It is reogni,e! that
ompany is free to regulate manpower an! employment from hiring to firing" aor!ing to their
!isretion an! best business $u!gment" e#ept in those ases of unlawful !isrimination or those
pro0i!e! by law.
&T'T<s poliy of not aepting or !isqualifying from wor. any woman wor.er who
ontrats marriage is afoul of the right against !isrimination pro0i!e! to all women wor.ers by
our labor laws an! by our )onstitution. The reor! !isloses learly that !e +u,man<s ties with
&T'T were !issol0e! prinipally beause of the ompany<s poliy that marrie! women are not
qualifie! for employment in the ompany" an! not merely beause of her suppose! ats of
!ishonesty.
&etitioner<s poliy is not only in !erogation of the pro0isions of Artile 136 of the =abor
)o!e on the right of a woman to be free from any .in! of stipulation against marriage in
onnetion with her employment" but it li.ewise assaults goo! morals an! publi poliy" ten!ing
as it !oes to !epri0e a woman of the free!om to hoose her status" a pri0ilege that by all aounts
inheres in the in!i0i!ual as an intangible an! inalienable right. @ene" while it is true that the
parties to a ontrat may establish any agreements" terms" an! on!itions that they may !eem
on0enient" the same shoul! not be ontrary to law" morals" goo! ustoms" publi or!er" or publi
poliy. )arrie! to its logial onsequenes" it may e0en be sai! that petitioner<s poliy against
legitimate marital bon!s woul! enourage illiit or ommonAlaw relations an! sub0ert the
sarament of marriage.
Suh poliy must be prohibite! in all its in!iret" !isguise! or !issemble! forms as
!isriminatory on!ut !erogatory of the laws of the lan! not only for or!er but also
imperati0ely require!.
The )onstitution" ogni,ant of the !isparity in rights between men an! women in almost
all phases of soial an! politial life" pro0i!es a gamut of proteti0e pro0isions. A.nowle!ge!
as paramount in the !ue proess sheme is the onstitutional guarantee of protetion to labor an!
seurity of tenure. Thus" an employer is require!" as a on!ition sine qua non prior to se0erane
of the employment ties of an in!i0i!ual un!er his employ" to on0iningly establish" through
substantial e0i!ene" the e#istene of a 0ali! an! $ust ause in !ispensing with the ser0ies of
suh employee" one<s labor being regar!e! as onstitutionally protete! property. The
go0ernment" to repeat" abhors any stipulation or poliy in the nature of that a!opte! by petitioner
&T'T.
In the ase at bar" it an easily be seen from the memoran!um sent to pri0ate respon!ent
by the branh super0isor of the ompany" with the remin!er" that you<re fully aware that the
ompany is not aepting marrie! women employee (si*" as it was 0erbally instrute! to you.%
Again" in the termination notie sent to her by the same branh super0isor" pri0ate respon!ent
was ma!e to un!erstan! that her se0erane from the ser0ie was not only by reason of her
onealment of her marrie! status but" o0er an! on top of that" was her 0iolation of the
ompany<s poliy against marriage (an! e0en tol! you that marrie! women employees are not
appliable BsiC or aepte! in our ompany.%