Chapter Five

MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVES
TOPICS PER SYLLABUS

F. Rules on Marriage Between Employees of Competitor-Employers

F.
RULES ON MARRIAGE BETWEEN EMPLOYEES OF COMPETITOR-EMPLOYERS

1. PREROGATIVE TO PRESCRIBE RULE ON MARRIAGE.

The employer has the prerogative to establish a policy on marriage. Jurisprudence has recognized and
established some definitive standards to determine whether such marital policy is valid or not.
2. RULE AGAINST MARRIAGE, WHEN VALID.
In the case of Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Welcome Philippines, Inc. ,1 the
contract of employment expressly prohibited an employee from having a relationship with an employee of a
competitor company. It provides:
10. You agree to disclose to management any existing or future relationship you may have, either
by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies. Should it
pose a possible conflict of interest in management discretion, you agree to resign voluntarily from the
Company as a matter of Company policy.
The Supreme Court ruled that this stipulation is a valid exercise of management prerogative. The prohibition
against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor-companies upon its employees is reasonable
under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. In
laying down the assailed company policy, the employer only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a
competitor company will gain access to its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other
confidential programs and information.
3. RULE AGAINST MARRIAGE, WHEN NOT VALID.
Article 136 of the Labor Code considers as an unlawful act of the employer to stipulate, as a condition of
employment or continuation of employment, that a woman employee shall not get married, or that upon getting
married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated. It is likewise an unlawful act of the employer, to
actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her
marriage.2
In PT & T v. NLRC,3 it was held that a company 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. 4
In a case decided by the Office of the President, 5 Zialcita v. Philippine Airlines, Inc.,6 the stipulation in
the contract between PAL and the flight attendant which states that flight attendant-applicants must be single and
that they shall be automatically separated from employment in the event they subsequently get married was
declared null and void and cannot thus be enforced for being contrary to Article 136 of the Labor Code and the
protection-to-labor clause in the Constitution.
4. REASONABLE BUSINESS NECESSITY RULE AS APPLIED TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
MARRIAGE POLICY.
The employees in Star Paper Corp. v. Simbol,7 were terminated on various occasions, on the basis of the
following company policy promulgated in 1995, viz. :
1. New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has [a] relative, up to [the] 3 rd

degree of relationship, already employed by the company.

 2. In case two of our employees (both singles [sic], one male and another female) developed a
friendly relationship during the course of their employment and then decided to get married, one of
them should resign to preserve the policy stated above.
According to the employer, said rule is only intended to carry out its no-employment-for-relatives-within-
the-third-degree-policy which is within the ambit of the prerogatives of management. The Supreme Court, however,
disagreed. It ruled that said policy failed to comply with the standard of reasonableness which is being followed in
our jurisdiction. The cases of Duncan [supra] and PT&T [supra] instruct that the requirement of reasonableness must be
clearly established to uphold the questioned employment policy. The employer has the burden to prove the existence
of a reasonable business necessity. The burden was successfully discharged in Duncan but not in PT&T. The High
Court similarly did not find a reasonable business necessity in the case at bar. Thus, it pronounced:
Petitioners sole contention that the company did not just want to have two (2) or more of its
employees related between the third degree by affinity and/or consanguinity is lame. That the second
paragraph was meant to give teeth to the first paragraph of the questioned rule is evidently not the valid
reasonable business necessity required by the law.
It is significant to note that in the case at bar, respondents were hired after they were found fit for
the job, but were asked to resign when they married a co-employee. Petitioners failed to show how the
marriage of Simbol, then a Sheeting Machine Operator, to Alma Dayrit, then an employee of the
Repacking Section, could be detrimental to its business operations. Neither did petitioners explain how
this detriment will happen in the case of Wilfreda Comia, then a Production Helper in the Selecting
Department, who married Howard Comia, then a helper in the cutter-machine. The policy is premised
on the mere fear that employees married to each other will be less efficient. If we uphold the
questioned rule without valid justification, the employer can create policies based on an unproven
presumption of a perceived danger at the expense of an employees right to security of tenure.
Petitioners contend that their policy will apply only when one employee marries a co-employee,
but they are free to marry persons other than co-employees. The questioned policy may not facially
violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a disproportionate effect and under the disparate
impact theory, the only way it could pass judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the
discriminatory, albeit disproportionate, effect. The failure of petitioners to prove a legitimate business
concern in imposing the questioned policy cannot prejudice the employees right to be free from
arbitrary discrimination based upon stereotypes of married persons working together in one company.

------------oOo------------

Endnotes:

1 G.R. No. 162994, Sept. 17, 2004.

2See also Section 13 [e], Rule XII, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code; Gualberto v. Marinduque Mining
Industrial Corporation, C. A. -G.R. No. 52753-R, June 28, 1978.

3 G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997, 272 SCRA 596, 605.

4 Gualberto v. Marinduque Mining & Industrial Corporation, [supra.

5 At the time when an appeal to the Office of the President was still the rule.

6 Case No. RO4-3-398-76, Feb. 20, 1977.

7 G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006.