Case Digest (G.R. No. 164774)
Facts:
In Star Paper Corporation, Josephine Ongsitco & Sebastian Chua v. Ronaldo D. Simbol, Wilfreda N. Comia & Lorna E. Estrella, G.R. No. 164774 decided on April 12, 2006, petitioners Star Paper Corporation (the Company), its Manager of Personnel and Administration Josephine Ongsitco, and Managing Director Sebastian Chua, enforced a 1995 anti-nepotism policy barring relatives up to the third degree, including spouses, from simultaneous employment. Respondent Simbol, hired October 27, 1993, married co-employee Alma Dayrit on June 27, 1998, and resigned on June 20, 1998. Respondent Comia, employed February 5, 1997, married fellow worker Howard Comia on June 1, 2000, and resigned June 30, 2000. Respondent Estrella, hired July 29, 1994, became pregnant by co-worker Luisito ZuAiga, was accused of immorality, then denied reentry to work on December 21, 1999, received a dismissal memorandum, and under duress submitted a resignation in exchange for her thirteenth month pay. All respondents sCase Digest (G.R. No. 164774)
Facts:
- Company and Policy
- Star Paper Corporation, principally trading in paper products, promulgated in 1995 an anti-nepotism/no-spouse policy providing:
- “New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has a relative, up to the 3rd degree of relationship, already employed by the company.”
- If two employees (one male, one female) “develop a friendly relationship… and then decide to get married, one of them should resign.”
- The policy was enforced by Personnel Manager Josephine Ongsitco and Managing Director Sebastian Chua.
- Respondents’ Employment and Separation
- Ronaldo D. Simbol (hired October 27, 1993) married co-employee Alma Dayrit on June 27, 1998; he resigned June 20, 1998 under policy threat.
- Wilfreda N. Comia (hired February 5, 1997) married co-employee Howard Comia on June 1, 2000; she resigned June 30, 2000 under policy threat.
- Lorna E. Estrella (hired July 29, 1994) became pregnant by co-worker Luisito ZuAiga; upon return from a 21-day medical leave she was denied entry, accused of immoral conduct, and compelled to resign December 21, 1999 for her 13th-month pay.
- Procedural History
- Respondents filed complaints for unfair labor practice, constructive dismissal, separation pay and attorney’s fees before the Labor Arbiter, alleging the policy violated Article 136 of the Labor Code and constitutional rights.
- Labor Arbiter (May 31, 2001) and NLRC (January 11, 2002; denied recon., August 8, 2002) dismissed the complaints, upholding management prerogative.
- Court of Appeals (August 3, 2004) reversed, declaring the dismissals illegal, ordering reinstatement with full backwages and attorney’s fees.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Issues:
- Does the employer’s 1995 no-spouse policy violate Article 136 of the Labor Code, the Constitution’s protection of marriage and family, and employees’ security of tenure?
- Were the respondents’ resignations voluntary, or did they amount to constructive dismissal under the policy’s coercion?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)