Duncan Association v Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, G.R. 162994, September 17, 2004.

Duncan Association v Glaxo Wellcome Philippines,  G.R.

162994, September 17, 2004.

Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision dated May 19, 2003 and the Resolution dated March 26, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62434.

Keywords: Equal Protection Clause

Summary:Petitioner has a relationship with an employee of a rival pharmaceutical firm. Petitioner was made aware thru his employment contract that if having a relationship with an employee of a competing drug company would pose a possible conflict of interest, he may be asked to resign from Glaxo.

Facts:

• 25 Oct 1995: Petitioner Pedro Tecson(Tecson) was hired by herein respondent GlaxoWellcom Philippines, Inc. (Glaxo) as a medical representative in CamarinesSuur-Camarines Norte sales area. Tecson signed an employment contract, wherein he agreed, among others, 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 if management  found that such relationship posed a possible conflict of interest, to resign from the company.

• September 1998: Tecson married Bettsyan employee of a rival pharmaceutical firm—Astra Pharmaceuticals.

• January 1999: Tecson's superiors informed him that his marriage to Bettsy had given rise to a conflict of interest. Negotiations ensued, with Tecson adverting to his wife's possible resignation from Astra, and Glaxo making it known that they preferred to retain his services owing to his good performance. Yet no resolution came to pass.

• September 1999: Tecson asked to be transferred to Glaxo’s Milk Division, but was denied in view of Glaxo’s “least-movement-possible” policy.

• November 1999: 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 sought Glaxo’s reconsideration regarding his transfer and brought the matter to Glaxo’s Grievance Committee. Glaxo, however, remained firm in its decision and gave Tescon until February 7, 2000 to comply with the transfer order. Tecson defied the transfer order and continued acting as medical representative in the Camarines Sur-CamarinesNorte sales area.

• 15 November 2000: the Nat’l. Conciliation and Mediation Board ruled that Glaxo’s policy on relationships between its employees and persons employed with competitor companies was valid, and affirmed Glaxo's right to transfer Tecson to another sales territory.

• This decision was assailed by petitioners before the Court of Appeals and the Court, but to no avail.

Issue:Whether or Not Glaxo’s  policy against its employees marrying employees from competitor companies is valid, and in not holding that said policy violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution;

Ratio: Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets.

Ruling: The record shows that Tecson was aware about the policy imposed by  Glaxo company, upon signing the contract, he voluntarily set his hands to follow the said policies. Albeit employees are free to cultivate relationships w/ and marry persons of their own choosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between the employee and the company that may arise out of such relationships. 

It is clear that Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibition against relationships between its employees and those of competitor companies. Its employees are free to cultivate relationships with and marry persons of their own choosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between the employee and the company that may arise out of such relationships. As succinctly explained by the appellate court, thus:

The policy being questioned is not a policy against marriage. An employee of the company remains free to marry anyone of his or her choosing. The policy is not aimed at restricting a personal prerogative that belongs only to the individual.However, an employees personal decision does not detract the employer from exercising management prerogatives to ensure maximum profit and business success. .

After Tecson married Bettsy, Glaxo gave him time to resolve the conflict .Glaxo even expressed its desire to retain Tecson in its employ because of his satisfactory performance and suggested that his wife would be the one to resign instead.  Glaxo likewise acceded to his repeated requests for more time to resolve the conflict of interest. When the problem could not be resolved after several years of waiting, Glaxo was constrained to reassign Tecson to a sales area different from that handled by his wife for Astra.  Notably, the Court did not terminate Tecson from employment but only reassigned him to another area where his home province, Agusandel Sur, was included.  In effecting Tecson’s transfer, Glaxo even considered the welfare of Tecson’s family.  Clearly, the foregoing dispels any suspicion of unfairness and bad faith on the part of Glaxo.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.