Case Summary (G.R. No. 248306)
Factual Background
Grace de Guzman was first engaged by PT&T as a reliever (supernumerary project worker) for fixed terms (Nov 21, 1990–Apr 20, 1991; and later in June–August 1991) to cover absences of regular employees. She contracted marriage on May 26, 1991. When PT&T later re-engaged her, she signed a probationary employment agreement on September 2, 1991 for a 150-day probationary period and, on the job application form and in prior reliever agreements, indicated her civil status as single despite being married.
Company Action and Employee Response
Upon learning of the discrepancy, branch supervisor Delia M. Oficial sent a memorandum (January 15, 1992) requiring an explanation and reminding de Guzman of the company policy that it did not accept married women for employment. De Guzman replied on January 17, 1992, asserting she was unaware of the policy at the time and denying deliberate concealment. PT&T dismissed de Guzman effective January 29, 1992; during the NLRC preliminary conference de Guzman admitted failure to remit collections totaling P2,380.75 and executed a promissory note to settle that amount.
Procedural History
De Guzman filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unpaid COLA before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Baguio. Labor Arbiter Rimando (November 23, 1993) found she had achieved regular status and ordered reinstatement with back wages and COLA, concluding PT&T’s ground for dismissal was insufficient and discriminatory. The NLRC affirmed the finding of unlawful discrimination but modified the relief by imposing a three-month suspension for de Guzman’s act of concealment; it ordered reinstatement and back wages less the suspension period. PT&T’s motion for reconsideration to the NLRC was denied, prompting the special civil action to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether PT&T’s policy and its dismissal of de Guzman violated Article 136 of the Labor Code and constitutional protections against discrimination.
- Whether de Guzman’s misrepresentation or failure to remit collections constituted just cause (loss of confidence/dishonesty) to justify dismissal.
- Whether de Guzman had attained regular employment status and was therefore entitled to security of tenure and related remedies.
Applicable Legal Standards
The Court relied on the 1987 Constitution’s protections (e.g., equality of men and women; protection of labor and security of tenure; protection of working women) and the Labor Code provisions prohibiting discrimination of women in employment, specifically Article 136 (prohibiting stipulations against marriage as a condition for employment or continuation) and Article 135 (prohibiting sex-based discrimination). Management prerogatives permit employer regulation of staffing and discipline, but such prerogatives cannot justify unlawful discrimination or contravene express statutory and constitutional protections. The Court recognized that loss of trust and confidence can justify dismissal only where supported by substantial evidence of an actual breach of duty and not as a pretext for unlawful reasons.
Court’s Analysis on Stipulation Against Marriage and Discrimination
The Court found PT&T’s policy barring married women from employment to be unlawful under Article 136 of the Labor Code and the Constitution. The memorandum and termination notice explicitly referenced the company’s non-acceptance of married women, demonstrating that the principal ground for severance was the company’s policy against married female employees. The Court rejected PT&T’s post hoc characterization that dismissal rested on de Guzman’s dishonesty; it concluded the company’s anti-marriage policy produced the concealment and thereby was the proximate cause of dismissal. The Court reiterated that policies stipulating non-marriage or automatic separation upon marriage are discriminatory and void unless a bona fide occupational qualification exists and is supported by regulations, which was not shown here.
Court’s Analysis on Dishonesty and Loss of Confidence
While the record showed de Guzman admitted nonremittance of certain collections and executed a promissory note, the Court treated this as a peripheral matter lacking proof of deliberate misappropriation sufficient to support dismissal. The Court noted no showing whether the failure to remit was negligent or intentional, simple or grave, and indicated the promissory note and settlement of that claim weighed against treating it as a decisive ground for termination. The Court accepted the NLRC’s view that any claim of dishonesty was an afterthought by PT&T to bolster an otherwise unlawful dismissal.
Regular Employment and Security of Tenure
The Court concluded de Guzman had a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 248306)
Case Caption, Citation, and Authors
- G.R. No. 118978; decision promulgated May 23, 1997; reported at 338 Phil. 1093.
- Title as stated in the source: PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANY,* PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND GRACE DE GUZMAN, RESPONDENTS.
- Decision written by Justice Regalado, J.; Justices Romero, Puno, Mendoza, and Torres, Jr., concur.
- The phrase “herein represented by DELIA M. OFICIAL” originally in the petition title was deleted in the opinion as unnecessary and violative of pleading rules; this deletion is noted and commented upon in the text of the decision.
Procedural History
- Private respondent Grace de Guzman filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of cost of living allowances (COLA) before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Baguio City after her dismissal effective January 29, 1992.
- At the preliminary conference, respondent admitted failing to remit collections amounting to P2,380.75 and executed a promissory note for that amount in favor of petitioner; this admission and agreement were made in a formal proceeding and incorporated in the stipulation of facts.
- Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando, on November 23, 1993, declared De Guzman illegally dismissed, ordered reinstatement and payment of back wages and COLA, finding discrimination on account of marriage.
- On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the arbiter’s decision but modified it to impose a three-month suspension on De Guzman for dishonest acts; NLRC’s decision dated April 29, 1994.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the NLRC in a resolution dated November 9, 1994.
- Petitioner PT&T filed an extraordinary writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court challenging the labor arbiter and NLRC decisions and the denial resolution; the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit with double costs against petitioner.
Facts — Employment Background of Grace de Guzman
- Initial engagements:
- Hired as a reliever (“Supernumerary Project Worker”) from November 21, 1990 to April 20, 1991 to replace C.F. Tenorio (maternity leave).
- Re-engaged as reliever from June 10, 1991 to July 1, 1991, and from July 19, 1991 to August 8, 1991 in replacement of Erlinda F. Dizon (leave periods).
- Under each Reliever Agreement her employment was to terminate upon expiration of the agreed period.
- Subsequent engagement:
- On September 2, 1991, she was again asked to join PT&T as a probationary employee for a 150-day probationary period.
- Civil status representations:
- In the job application form used for the September 2, 1991 engagement, in the portion for civil status, De Guzman indicated she was “single” although she had contracted marriage on May 26, 1991.
- She had made the same representation in the two reliever agreements signed on June 10, 1991 and July 8, 1991.
- Employer’s discovery and correspondence:
- Branch supervisor Delia M. Oficial sent De Guzman a memorandum dated January 15, 1992 requiring explanation for the discrepancy and reminding her of the company policy of not accepting married women for employment.
- De Guzman replied by letter dated January 17, 1992 stating she was not aware of PT&T’s policy and that she had not deliberately hidden her civil status.
- Dismissal:
- Petitioner dismissed De Guzman from service effective January 29, 1992.
- Petitioner later asserted that the dismissal was based on both concealment of civil status and an alleged defalcation (failure to remit P2,380.75), the latter having been acknowledged by De Guzman in the proceedings and settled by her promissory note.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether petitioner PT&T lawfully dismissed private respondent Grace de Guzman on the grounds proffered (concealment and alleged defalcation).
- Whether petitioner’s company policy of not accepting or continuing employment of married women is lawful under the Labor Code, the Constitution, and related statutes.
- Whether private respondent had acquired regular status and security of tenure at the time of dismissal, affording her protection against dismissal without just cause.
- Appropriate remedy and quantum of relief in light of findings regarding discrimination and the admitted failure to remit collections.
Labor Arbiter and NLRC Findings (as recited by the Supreme Court)
- Labor Arbiter:
- Found that De Guzman had attained regular status and that her dismissal was illegal.
- Ordered reinstatement and payment of back wages and COLA.
- Determined that petitioner’s ground for dismissal (marriage) was insufficient and that De Guzman was discriminated against for having contracted marriage.
- NLRC:
- Agreed that De Guzman had been unjustly and unlawfully discriminated against by PT&T.
- Modified relief to impose a three-month suspension in view of the dishonest nature of De Guzman’s acts, but otherwise affirmed reinstatement and back wages.
Supreme Court Holding (Disposition)
- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition of Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company for lack of merit.
- The NLRC decision affirming illegal dismissal but imposing a three-month suspension on De Guzman was effectively sustained by the Supreme Court’s reasoning: reinstatement with back wages reduced by the equivalent of a three-month suspension.
- Double costs were awarded against petitioner.
Supreme Court Reasoning — Article 136 and Prohibition Against Stipulation on Marriage
- Article 136 of the Labor Code bars as unlawful any employer requirement or stipulation that a woman must not get married as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, or any act of dismissal, discharge, discrimination or prejudice against a woman merely by reason of marriage.
- The Court traced Article 136’s lineage to Section 8 of Presidential Decree No. 148 (Women and Child Labor Law), and earlier statutory antecedents (Republic Act No. 679; Act No. 3071).
- The Court emphasized that PT&T’s policy of not accepting married women for employment (qualification and retention) contravenes Article 136 and is therefore illegal.
- The Court referenced Zialcita, et al. vs. Philippine Air Lines and other authorities to show that occupational peculiarity does not automatically validate a no-marriage rule a