9.
Presidential Broadcast Staff-Radio Televison Macañang vs Tabasa
GR. No. 234624 February 26, 2020
Material Facts:
Sometime in December 28, 2012, at noon time, Sharmila Kaye Angco, a contractual
employee of plaintiff Presidential Broadcast Staff-Radio TV Malacañang was seated in a sofa of
the Engineering Office watching Eat Bulaga when respondent, a close-in cameraman sat beside
her and cornered her. Tabasa then tickled her right knee much to her shock and humiliation.
Despite her protestations, Tabasa also held her causing her to hit her left elbow in the nearby
cabinet when she freed herself from him. Instead of apologizing, Tabasa uttered, “Oh, umiiyak
ka daw?” This prompted Angco to file an administrative case against Tabasa for sexual
harrassment on June 18, 2013, pending the investigation, a decision in Tabasa’s prior
administrative case was rendered on September 5, 2013 finding him liable for simple
misconduct for his previous altercation with another officemate.
On May 20, 2014, after due notice and hearing, the Committee adjudged Tabasa guilty
of simple misconduct. The offense being the second one, the Committee meted out the penalty
of dismissal from service pursuant to section 46, D (2), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on
Administrative cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) CSC Memorandum Circular s.1989, and
other pertinent Civil Service Laws. Hence, Tabasa contested the penalty.
Issue:
Whether or not the penalty is proper.
Ruling:
Yes. Under the Civil Service Law and its implementing rules on administrative cases, the
penalty for the second offense of simple misconduct is dismissal from the service. Thus, as
provided by law there is no penalty that should be imposed on Tabasa other than the penalty of
dismissal.
Although, the rules allow the consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances and
provide for the manner of imposition of the proper penalty even in cases where the penalty
prescribed by law is dismissal from the service, under the facts of this case, Tabasa is not
entitled to a lower penalty.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action; more particularly, it
is an unlawful behavior by the public officer.
It is important to stress that there is playful teasing and then there is hurtful teasing. Despite
teasing’s positive effects to interpersonal relationships, it may not always be perceived
favorably. The way a person views a joke may differ depending on the situation and on how
one perceives a tease – a teaser’s intentions and his/her overall interaction with the teaser.
Insensitive jokes or actions could border on harassment, due to the fact that targets may be
unaware of the teaser’s intentions. Therefore, for the protection of all employees, a line has to
be drawn before an innocent action becomes a full-blown harassment.
10. Duncan Association v Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc
Matetial Facts:
Petitioner Pedro A. Tecson (Tecson) was hired by respondent Glaxo Wellcome
Philippines, Inc. (Glaxo) as medical representative on October 24, 1995, after Tecson had
undergone training and orientation.
Thereafter, Tecson signed a contract of employment which stipulates, among others,
that he agrees to study and abide by existing company rules; to disclose to management any
existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of
competing drug companies and should management find that such relationship poses a
possible conflict of interest, to resign from the company. Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly
provides these conditions; that otherwise, the management and the employee will explore the
possibility of a “transfer to another department in a non-counterchecking position” or
preparation for employment outside the company after six months.
Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxo’s products in the Camarines Sur-
Camarines Norte sales area. Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with
Bettsy, an employee of Astra Pharmaceuticals3(Astra), a competitor of Glaxo. Bettsy was
Astra’s Branch Coordinator in Albay. She supervised the district managers and medical
representatives of her company and prepared marketing strategies for Astra in that area.
Even before they got married, Tecson received several reminders from his District Manager
regarding the conflict of interest which his relationship with Bettsy might engender. Still, love
prevailed, and Tecson married Bettsy in September 1998.
Tecson’s superior reminded him that he and Bettsy should decide which one of them
would resign from their jobs. Tecson requested for time to comply with the company policy
against entering into a relationship with an employee of a competitor company. He explained
that Astra, Bettsy’s employer, was planning to merge with Zeneca, another drug company; and
Bettsy was planning to avail of the redundancy package to be offered by Astra.
Tecson again requested for more time resolve the problem. Thereafter, Tecson applied
for a transfer in Glaxo’s milk division, thinking that since Astra did not have a milk division, the
potential conflict of interest would be eliminated. His application was denied in view of Glaxo’s
“least-movement-possible” policy.
Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area. Tecson
asked Glaxo to reconsider its decision, but his request was denied. Tecson defied the transfer
order and continued acting as medical representative in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte
sales area.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CASE: Because the parties failed to resolve the issue at the
grievance machinery level, they submitted the matter for voluntary arbitration, but Tecson
declined the offer. On November 15, 2000, the National Conciliation and Mediation Board
(NCMB) rendered its Decision declaring as valid Glaxo’s policy on relationships between its
employees and persons employed with competitor companies, and affirming Glaxo’s right to
transfer Tecson to another sales territory.
CA sustained; MR denied.
Petitioner’s Contention: that Glaxo’s policy against employees marrying employees of
competitor companies violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it
creates invalid distinctions among employees on account only of marriage. They claim that the
policy restricts the employees’ right to marry; that Tecson was constructively dismissed
GLAXO argues: that the company policy prohibiting its employees from having a relationship
with and/or marrying an employee of a competitor company is a valid exercise of its
management prerogatives and does not violate the equal protection clause;
The policy is also aimed at preventing a competitor company from gaining access to its secrets,
procedures and policies; that Tecson can no longer question the assailed company policy
because when he signed his contract of employment, he was aware that such policy was
stipulated therein.
Issue:
WON Glaxo’s policy against its employees marrying employees from competitor
companies is valid
Ruling
The Court finds no merit in the petition.
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing
strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors, especially so that
it and Astra are rival companies in the highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.
The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor
companies upon Glaxo’s 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.
11. Philippine Telegraph And Telephone v National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. NO. 118978, [MAY 23, 1997]
Material Facts:
Grace de Guzman was initially hired by petitioner as a reliever, specifically as a
“Supernumerary Project Worker,” for a fixed period from November 21, 1990 until April 20,
1991 vice one C.F. Tenorio who went on maternity leave. Under the Reliever Agreement which
she signed with petitioner company, her employment was to be immediately terminated upon
expiration of the agreed period.
Thereafter, from June 10, 1991 to July 1, 1991, and from July 19, 1991 to August 8,
1991, private respondent’ s services as reliever were again engaged by petitioner, this time in
replacement of one Erlinda F. Dizon who went on leave during both periods. After August 8,
1991, and pursuant to their Reliever Agreement, her services were terminated. LibLex
On September 2, 1991, private respondent was once more asked to join petitioner
company as a probationary employee, the probationary period to cover 150 days. In the job
application form that was furnished her to be filled up for the purpose, she indicated in the
portion for civil status therein that she was single although she had contracted marriage a few
months earlier, that is, on May 26, 1991.
It now appears that private respondent had made the same representation in the two
successive reliever agreements which she signed on June 10, 1991 and July 8, 1991. When
petitioner supposedly learned about the same later, its branch supervisor in Baguio City, Delia
M. Oficial, sent to private respondent a memorandum dated January 15, 1992 requiring her to
explain the discrepancy. In that memorandum, she was reminded about the company’s policy
of not accepting married women for employment.
In her reply letter dated January 17, 1992, private respondent stated that she was
not aware of PT&T’s policy regarding married women at the time, and that all along she had not
deliberately hidden her true civil status. Petitioner nonetheless remained unconvinced by her
explanations. Private respondent was dismissed from the company effective January 29, 1992,
which she readily contested by initiating a complaint for illegal dismissal, coupled with a claim
for non-payment of cost of living allowances (COLA), before the Regional Arbitration Branch of
the National Labor Relations Commission in Baguio City.
At the preliminary conference conducted in connection therewith, private respondent
volunteered the information, and this was incorporated in the stipulation of facts between the
parties, that she had failed to remit the amount of P2,380.75 of her collections. She then
executed a promissory note for that amount in favor of petitioner. All of these took place in a
formal proceeding and with the agreement of the parties and/or their counsel.
On November 23, 1993, Labor Arbiter Irenarco R. Rimando handed down a decision
declaring that private respondent, who had already gained the status of a regular employee,
was illegally dismissed by petitioner. Her reinstatement, plus payment of the corresponding
back wages and COLA, was correspondingly ordered, the labor arbiter being of the firmly
expressed view that the ground relied upon by petitioner in dismissing private respondent was
clearly insufficient, and that it was apparent that she had been discriminated against on account
of her having contracted marriage in violation of company rules.
On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), said public respondent
upheld the labor arbiter and, in its decision dated April 29, 1994, it ruled that private respondent
had indeed been the subject of an unjust and unlawful discrimination by her employer, PT&T.
However, the decision of the labor arbiter was modified with the qualification that Grace de
Guzman deserved to be suspended for three months in view of the dishonest nature of her acts
which should not be condoned. In all other respects, the NLRC affirmed the decision of the
labor arbiter, including the order for the reinstatement of private respondent in her employment
with PT&T.
Issue:
Whetehr the dismissal is valid.
Ruling:
NO. Decreed in the Bible itself is the universal norm that women should be regarded
with love and respect but, through the ages, men have responded to that injunction with
indifference, on the hubristic conceit that women constitute the inferior sex. Nowhere has that
prejudice against womankind been so pervasive as in the field of labor, especially on the matter
of equal employment opportunities and standards. In the Philippine setting, women have
traditionally been considered as falling within the vulnerable groups or types of workers who
must be safeguarded with preventive and remedial social legislation against discriminatory and
exploitative practices in hiring, training, benefits, promotion and retention.
12. Star Paper Corporation v. Ronaldo D. Simbol,
GR No. 164774, 2006-04
Material Facts:
Petitioner Star Paper Corporation (the company) is a corporation engaged in trading -
principally of paper products. Josephine Ongsitco is its Manager of the Personnel and
Administration Department while Sebastian Chua is its Managing Director.
The evidence for the petitioners show that respondents Ronaldo D. Simbol (Simbol),
Wilfreda N. Comia (Comia) and Lorna E. Estrella (Estrella) were all regular employees of the
company.
Simbol was employed by the company. He met Alma Dayrit, also an employee of the
company, whom he married. Prior to the marriage, Ongsitco advised the couple that should
they decide to get married, one of them should resign pursuant to a company policy and Simbol
resigned pursuant to the company policy.
Comia was hired by the company
She met Howard Comia, a co-employee, whom she married
Ongsitco likewise reminded them that pursuant to company policy, one must resign should they
decide to get married. Comia resigned
Estrella was hired
She met Luisito Zuñiga (Zuñiga), also a co-worker. Petitioners stated that Zuñiga, a married
man, got Estrella pregnant. The company allegedly could have terminated her services due to
immorality but she opted to resign
The respondents each signed a Release and Confirmation Agreement. They stated therein that
they have no money and property accountabilities in the company and that they release the
latter of any claim or demand of whatever nature.
Respondents offer a different version of their dismissal. Simbol and Comia allege that they did
not resign voluntarily; they were compelled to resign in view of an illegal company policy. As to
respondent Estrella, she alleges that she had a relationship with co-worker Zuñiga... who
misrepresented himself as a married but separated man. After he got her pregnant, she
discovered that he was not separated. Thus, she severed her relationship with him to avoid
dismissal due to the company policy.
The memorandum stated that she was being dismissed for immoral conduct. She refused to
sign the memorandum because she was on leave for twenty-one (21) days and has not been
given a chance to explain.
Respondents later filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, constructive dismissal, separation
pay and attorney's fees.
They averred that the aforementioned company policy is illegal and contravenes Article 136 of
the Labor Code. They also contended that they were dismissed... due to their union
membership.
Labor Arbiter... dismissed the complaint for lack of merit,... On appeal to the NLRC, the
Commission affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter... the Court of Appeals reversed the
NLRC decision
Issues:
whether the policy of the employer banning spouses from working in the same company
violates the rights of the employee under the Constitution and the Labor Code or is a valid
exercise of management... prerogative.
Ruling:
We affirm.
The 1987 Constitution[15] states our policy towards the protection of labor under the following
provisions, viz.:
Article II, Section 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect
the rights of workers and promote their welfare.
xxx
Article XIII, Sec. 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized
and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for
all.
The Civil Code likewise protects labor with the following provisions:
Art. 1700. The relation between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so
impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore,
such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective... bargaining, strikes
and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.
Art. 1702. In case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in
favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer.
The Labor Code is the most comprehensive piece of legislation protecting labor. The case at
bar involves Article 136 of the Labor Code which provides:
Art. 136. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or
continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate
expressly or tacitly that upon getting married a woman employee shall be deemed resigned...
or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman
employee merely by reason of her marriage.
With more women entering the workforce, employers are also enacting employment policies
specifically prohibiting spouses from working for the same company.
We note that two types of employment policies involve spouses: policies banning only spouses
from working in the same... company (no-spouse employment policies), and those banning all
immediate family members, including spouses, from working in the
13. ARMANDO G. YRASUEGUI v PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC..
G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008
Material Facts:
This case portrays the peculiar story of an international flight steward who was
dismissed because of his failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company.
The proper weight for a man of his height and body structure is from 147 to 166 pounds,
the ideal weight being 166 pounds, as mandated by the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual
of PAL.
In 1984, the weight problem started, which prompted PAL to send him to an extended
vacation until November 1985. He was allowed to return to work once he lost all the excess
weight. But the problem recurred. He again went on leave without pay from October 17, 1988 to
February 1989.
Despite the lapse of a ninety-day period given him to reach his ideal weight, petitioner
remained overweight. On January 3, 1990, he was informed of the PAL decision for him to
remain grounded until such time that he satisfactorily complies with the weight standards. Again,
he was directed to report every two weeks for weight checks, which he failed to comply with.
On April 17, 1990, petitioner was formally warned that a repeated refusal to report for
weight check would be dealt with accordingly. He was given another set of weight check dates,
which he did not report to.
On November 13, 1992, PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for
violation of company standards on weight requirements. Petitioner insists that he is being
discriminated as those similarly situated were not treated the same.
On June 15, 1993, petitioner was formally informed by PAL that due to his inability to attain his
ideal weight, “and considering the utmost leniency” extended to him “which spanned a period
covering a total of almost five (5) years,” his services were considered terminated “effective
immediately.”
LABOR ARBITER: held that the weight standards of PAL are reasonable in view of the nature of
the job of petitioner. However, the weight standards need not be complied with under pain of
dismissal since his weight did not hamper the performance of his duties.
NLRC affirmed.
CA: the weight standards of PAL are reasonable. Thus, petitioner was legally dismissed
because he repeatedly failed to meet the prescribed weight standards. It is obvious that the
issue of discrimination was only invoked by petitioner for purposes of escaping the result of his
dismissal for being overweight.
Issue:
Whether he was validly dismissed.
Ruling
YES. A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion than
that they constitute a continuing qualification of an employee in order to keep the job. The
dismissal of the employee would thus fall under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code.
In the case at bar, the evidence on record militates against petitioner’s claims that obesity is a
disease. That he was able to reduce his weight from 1984 to 1992 clearly shows that it is
possible for him to lose weight given the proper attitude, determination, and self-discipline.
Indeed, during the clarificatory hearing on December 8, 1992, petitioner himself claimed that
“[t]he issue is could I bring my weight down to ideal weight which is 172, then the answer is yes.
I can do it now.”
Petitioner has only himself to blame. He could have easily availed the assistance of the
company physician, per the advice of PAL.
In fine, We hold that the obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his work as flight
attendant, becomes an analogous cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code that justifies his
dismissal from the service. His obesity may not be unintended, but is nonetheless voluntary. As
the CA correctly puts it, “[v]oluntariness basically means that the just cause is solely attributable
to the employee without any external force influencing or controlling his actions. This element
runs through all just causes under Article 282, whether they be in the nature of a wrongful action
or omission. Gross and habitual neglect, a recognized just cause, is considered voluntary
although it lacks the element of intent found in Article 282(a), (c), and (d).”
NOTES:
The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the bona fide occupational qualification
defense. Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex,
religion, or national origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is
an actual qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational
qualification (BFOQ). In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used
because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably
necessary for satisfactory job performance.”
The business of PAL is air transportation. As such, it has committed itself to safely transport its
passengers. In order to achieve this, it must necessarily rely on its employees, most particularly
the
14.
