Star Paper CorpJ Et Al. vs. SimbolJ Et Al

Star Paper Corp., Josephine Ongsitco & Sebastian Chua vs. Ronaldo D. Simbol, Wilfreda N.
Comia & Lorna E. Estrella

G.R. No. 164774
Puno, J.:
Facts:
The case at bar is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision of the Court of
Appeals reversing the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) which
affirmed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter.
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 and Comia in the course of their employment with the company, got married to their co-
employees. They were informed of a company policy prior to their marriage, viz;
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
Simbol and Comia resigned pursuant to the said company policy .On the part of Estrella she had
an illicit affair with her co employee who is married and eventually became pregnant. She could
have been dismissed for immorality but she resigned.
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 Zuiga 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. She met an accident and was advised by the doctor to recuperate but when
She returned to work she found out that her name was on-hold at the gate. She was denied entry.
She was directed to proceed to the personnel office where one of the staff handed her a
memorandum. 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. 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
Respondents later filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, constructive dismissal, separation
pay and attorneys 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.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit alleging that thebsaid company
policy was pursuant to the exercise of management prerogative . On appeal to the NLRC, the
Commission affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter. Respondents filed a Motion for
Reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution. They appealed to respondent court
via Petition for Certiorari. The CA reversed the decision of the NLRC
Issue: WON the policy of the employer banning spouses from working in the company violates
the rights of the employee under the Constitution and the Labor Code or WON it is a valid
exercise of management prerogative
Ruling:
The questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates a
disproportionate effect and under the disparate impact theory, the only way it could pass
judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit
disproportionate, effect. The failure of petitioners to prove a legitimate business concern in
imposing the questioned policy cannot prejudice the employees right to be free from arbitrary
discrimination based upon stereotypes of married persons working together in one company.
Lastly, the absence of a statute expressly prohibiting marital discrimination in our

jurisdiction cannot benefit the petitioners. The protection given to labor in our jurisdiction is
vast and extensive that we cannot prudently draw inferences from the legislatures 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. It is illogical for Estrella to resign and then
file a complaint for illegal dismissal. Given the lack of sufficient evidence on the part of
petitioners that the resignation was voluntary, Estrellas dismissal is declared illegal.

Star Paper CorpJ Et Al. vs. SimbolJ Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Star Paper CorpJ Et Al. vs. SimbolJ Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Star Paper CorpJ Et Al. vs. SimbolJ Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Star Paper Corp., Josephine Ongsitco & Sebastian Chua vs. Ronaldo D. Simbol, Wilfreda N.

Comia & Lorna E. Estrella

Lastly, the absence of a statute expressly prohibiting marital discrimination in our

You might also like