Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, G.R. 164774, April 12, 2006

Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, G.R. 164774, April 12, 2006

Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated August 3, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 73477 reversing the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter.

Summary: Company ban dating and relatives hired in the same company up to the 3rd degree. If an employee both in the same company decides to marry, one of them must resign their post as per company rules and regulation. SC - sided with the employees; company reasoning is in violation of the equal protection clause.

Facts:

Petitioners: Star Paper Corporation (Josephine Ongsitco - Manager of the Personnel and Administration Department & Sebastian Chua – Managing Director)

Respondents:Ronaldo D. Simbol (Simbol), Wilfreda N. Comia (Comia) and Lorna E. Estrella (Estrella)

• Star Paper Corporation (COMPANY) has a company policy that was promulgated in 1995 states that:

1. 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.

2. In case of two of our employees (both singles [sic], one male and another female) developed a friendly relationship during the course of their employment and then decided to get married, one of them should resign to preserve the policy stated above.

• Ongsitco reminded the Respondents that should they decide to get married, one must resign.

Respondent’s Name            Date of Employment            Date of Marriage to co-employee            Date of Resignation

(Simbol)            27 Oct 1993            27 June 1998            20 June 1998

(Comia)            5 Feb 1997            1 June 2000            30 June 2000

(Estrella)            29 July 1994            X            21 December 1999

•Estrella met LuisitoZuñiga (Zuñiga), a married man and a co-worker. Zuñiga got Estrella pregnant. The company allegedly could’ve terminated her services due to immorality, but opted to resign on 21 Dec 1999.

•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.

• Simbol and Comia allege that they did not resign voluntarily; they were compelled to resign in view of an illegal company policy.

• Estrella 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

• 30 November 1999: Estrella met an accident and was advised by the doctor to recuperate for 21 days.

• 21 Dec 1999: She returned to work but was denied entry. She was then given a memorandum which 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. The management asked her to write an explanation. However, after submission of the explanation, she was nonetheless dismissed by the company. Due to her urgent need for money, she later submitted a letter of resignation in exchange for her thirteenth month pay.

• They filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, constructive dismissal, separation pay and attorney’s fees.

• 31 May 2001, Labor Arbiter del Rosario dismissed the complaint for lack of merit.

• 11 January 2002: On appeal, NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

• 8 August 2002: A resolution denying the MR of respondents was released. Thereafter, they appealed through a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.

• 3 August 2004: The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC decision  and declared the petitioners’ dismissal from employment illegal and ordered the Company to reinstate petitioners to their former positions without loss of seniority rights with full backwages from the time of their dismissal until actual reinstatement; andto pay petitioners attorney’s fees amounting to 10% of the award and the cost of the suit.

Issue: 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:

Petitioners’ sole contention that "the company did not just want to have two (2) or more of its employees related between the third degree by affinity and/or consanguinity" is lame.

It is significant to note that in the case at bar, respondents were hired after they were found fit for the job, but were asked to resign when they married a co-employee. Petitioners failed to show how the marriage between the respondent and their spouse could be detrimental to its business operations.

The protection given to labor in our jurisdiction is vast and extensive that we cannot prudently draw inferences from the legislature’s silence, that married persons are not protected under our Constitution and declare valid a policy based on a prejudice or stereotype. Thus, for failure of petitioners to present undisputed proof of a reasonable business necessity, we rule that the questioned policy is an invalid exercise of management prerogative. Corollarily, the issue as to whether respondents Simbol and Comia resigned voluntarily has become moot and academic.Thus, reinstating both to their posts.

As for Estrella, the court found that the petitioners contention that she was pressured to resign because she got impregnated by a married man and she could not stand being looked upon or talked about as immoral, incredulous. If she really wanted to avoid embarrassment and humiliation, she would not have gone back to work at all. Nor would she have filed a suit for illegal dismissal and pleaded for reinstatement. We have held that in voluntary resignation, the employee is compelled by personal reason(s) to dissociate himself from employment. It is done with the intention of relinquishing an office, accompanied by the act of abandonment. Given the lack of sufficient evidence on the part of petitioners that the resignation was voluntary, Estrella’s dismissal is declared illegal.