G.R. No. 162994 - Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO vs. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.

Pedro A. Tecson was hired by Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc. (Glaxo) on October 24, 1995 as a medical representative after training and orientation. He signed an employment contract requiring disclosure of any consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies and stipulating voluntary resignation if management deemed a conflict of interest.
Glaxo’s Employee Code of Conduct similarly required employees to inform management of any existing or future relationships with co-employees or competitor employees, with management to explore transfer or other solutions within six months if a conflict arose, or prepare for separation.

Tecson entered into a relationship and married Bettsy, Branch Coordinator of competitor Astra Pharmaceuticals, in September 1998. Bettsy supervised Astra’s district managers and medical representatives in Albay.
Beginning in January 1999, Glaxo management reminded Tecson of the conflict of interest. Tecson requested time to await Bettsy’s planned redundancy package from Astra and later sought transfer to Glaxo’s milk division (denied under “least-movement-possible” policy). In November 1999, Glaxo ordered his transfer from the Bicol region (Camarines Sur–Norte) to Butuan–Surigao–Agusan; Tecson defied the order.

During grievance proceedings, Tecson continued receiving salary but was excluded from product samples and conferences related to competing drugs. The parties submitted to voluntary arbitration.
On November 15, 2000, the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) upheld Glaxo’s policy and right to transfer Tecson. Tecson’s petition for review with the Court of Appeals was denied on May 19, 2003, and a motion for reconsideration was denied on March 26, 2004.

Petitioners argued that (a) the prohibition against marrying competitor employees violated the constitutional equal protection clause and restricted the right to marry, and (b) Tecson was constructively dismissed by his transfer, diminution of pay, exclusion from seminars, and prohibition from promoting certain products.
Glaxo contended that the policy was a valid exercise of its management prerogatives, did not violate equal protection (as it applied impartially and was contractually agreed), and that Tecson’s reassignment and seminar exclusion did not constitute constructive dismissal.

Whether Glaxo’s policy prohibiting its employees from marrying or having relationships with competitor-company employees is valid or violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Whether the policy is a proper exercise of management prerogative to protect business interests.

Whether Tecson’s transfer to another sales area, diminution in opportunities (seminars, samples), and restrictions on product promotion amount to constructive dismissal under labor law.