481 Phil.

687
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 162994, September 17, 2004
DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO AND PEDRO A. TECSON,
PETITIONERS, VS. GLAXO WELLCOME PHILIPPINES, INC. RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
TINGA, J.:
Confronting the Court in this petition is a novel question, with constitutional overtones, involving the
validity of the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying employees
of any competitor company.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision[1] dated May 19, 2003 and the
Resolution dated March 26, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62434. [2]
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.
The Employee Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly provides that an employee is expected to inform
management of any existing or future relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or
employees of competing drug companies. If management perceives a conflict of interest or a potential
conflict between such relationship and the employees employment with the company, the management
and the employee will explore the possibility of a transfer to another department in a noncounterchecking position or preparation for employment outside the company after six months.
Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxos products in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales
area.
Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic relationship with Bettsy, an employee of Astra
Pharmaceuticals[3] (Astra), a competitor of Glaxo. Bettsy was Astras 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.
In January 1999, Tecsons superiors informed him that his marriage to Bettsy gave rise to a conflict of
interest. Tecsons superiors reminded him that he and Bettsy should decide which one of them would
resign from their jobs, although they told him that they wanted to retain him as much as possible because
he was performing his job well.
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, Bettsys 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. With Bettsys separation from her company, the potential conflict of interest would be

eliminated. At the same time, they would be able to avail of the attractive redundancy package from
Astra.
In August 1999, Tecson again requested for more time resolve the problem. In September 1999, Tecson
applied for a transfer in Glaxos 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 Glaxos leastmovement-possible policy.
In 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 Glaxos reconsideration regarding his transfer and brought the matter to Glaxos 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-Camarines Norte sales area.
During the pendency of the grievance proceedings, Tecson was paid his salary, but was not issued
samples of products which were competing with similar products manufactured by Astra. He was also
not included in product conferences regarding such products.
Because the parties failed to resolve the issue at the grievance machinery level, they submitted the matter
for voluntary arbitration. Glaxo offered Tecson a separation pay of one-half () month pay for every year
of service, or a total of P50,000.00 but he declined the offer. On November 15, 2000, the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) rendered its Decision declaring as valid Glaxos policy on
relationships between its employees and persons employed with competitor companies, and affirming
Glaxos right to transfer Tecson to another sales territory.
Aggrieved, Tecson filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals assailing the NCMB Decision.
On May 19, 2003, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision denying the Petition for Review on the
ground that the NCMB did not err in rendering its Decision. The appellate court held that Glaxos policy
prohibiting its employees from having personal relationships with employees of competitor companies is
a valid exercise of its management prerogatives. [4]
Tecson filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the appellate courts Decision, but the motion was denied by
the appellate court in its Resolution dated March 26, 2004.[5]
Petitioners filed the instant petition, arguing therein that (i) the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the
NCMBs finding that the Glaxos policy prohibiting its employees from marrying an employee of a
competitor company is valid; and (ii) the Court of Appeals also erred in not finding that Tecson was
constructively dismissed when he was transferred to a new sales territory, and deprived of the opportunity
to attend products seminars and training sessions. [6]
Petitioners contend that Glaxos 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.[7]
They also argue that Tecson was constructively dismissed as shown by the following circumstances: (1)
he was transferred from the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area to the Butuan-Surigao-Agusan
sales area, (2) he suffered a diminution in pay, (3) he was excluded from attending seminars and training

sessions for medical representatives, and (4) he was prohibited from promoting respondents products
which were competing with Astras products.[8]
In its Comment on the petition, 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; and that Tecsons reassignment
from the Camarines Norte-Camarines Sur sales area to the Butuan City-Surigao City and Agusan del Sur
sales area does not amount to constructive dismissal. [9]
Glaxo insists that as a company engaged in the promotion and sale of pharmaceutical products, it has a
genuine interest in ensuring that its employees avoid any activity, relationship or interest that may conflict
with their responsibilities to the company. Thus, it expects its employees to avoid having personal or
family interests in any competitor company which may influence their actions and decisions and
consequently deprive Glaxo of legitimate profits. The policy is also aimed at preventing a competitor
company from gaining access to its secrets, procedures and policies. [10]
It likewise asserts that the policy does not prohibit marriage per se but only proscribes existing or future
relationships with employees of competitor companies, and is therefore not violative of the equal
protection clause. It maintains that considering the nature of its business, the prohibition is based on valid
grounds.[11]
According to Glaxo, Tecsons marriage to Bettsy, an employee of Astra, posed a real and potential conflict
of interest. Astras products were in direct competition with 67% of the products sold by Glaxo. Hence,
Glaxos enforcement of the foregoing policy in Tecsons case was a valid exercise of its management
prerogatives.[12] In any case, Tecson was given several months to remedy the situation, and was even
encouraged not to resign but to ask his wife to resign from Astra instead. [13]
Glaxo also points out 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. In said contract,
he also agreed to resign from respondent if the management finds that his relationship with an employee
of a competitor company would be detrimental to the interests of Glaxo. [14]
Glaxo likewise insists that Tecsons reassignment to another sales area and his exclusion from seminars
regarding respondents new products did not amount to constructive dismissal.
It claims that in view of Tecsons refusal to resign, he was relocated from the Camarines Sur-Camarines
Norte sales area to the Butuan City-Surigao City and Agusan del Sur sales area. Glaxo asserts that in
effecting the reassignment, it also considered the welfare of Tecsons family. Since Tecsons hometown
was in Agusan del Sur and his wife traces her roots to Butuan City, Glaxo assumed that his transfer from
the Bicol region to the Butuan City sales area would be favorable to him and his family as he would be
relocating to a familiar territory and minimizing his travel expenses. [15]
In addition, Glaxo avers that Tecsons exclusion from the seminar concerning the new anti-asthma drug
was due to the fact that said product was in direct competition with a drug which was soon to be sold by
Astra, and hence, would pose a potential conflict of interest for him. Lastly, the delay in Tecsons receipt
of his sales paraphernalia was due to the mix-up created by his refusal to transfer to the Butuan City sales
area (his paraphernalia was delivered to his new sales area instead of Naga City because the supplier
thought he already transferred to Butuan).[16]
The Court is tasked to resolve the following issues: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that
Glaxos 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; (2) Whether Tecson was
constructively dismissed.
The Court finds no merit in the petition.
The stipulation in Tecsons contract of employment with Glaxo being questioned by petitioners provides:

10. You agree to disclose to management any existing or future relationship you may have, either by
consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug companies. Should it pose
a possible conflict of interest in management discretion, you agree to resign voluntarily from the
Company as a matter of Company policy.
[17]
The same contract also stipulates that Tecson agrees to abide by the existing company rules of Glaxo, and
to study and become acquainted with such policies. [18] In this regard, the Employee Handbook of Glaxo
expressly informs its employees of its rules regarding conflict of interest:
1. Conflict of Interest
Employees should avoid any activity, investment relationship, or interest that may run counter to the
responsibilities which they owe Glaxo Wellcome.
Specifically, this means that employees are expected:
a. To avoid having personal or family interest, financial or otherwise, in any competitor
supplier or other businesses which may consciously or unconsciously influence their
actions or decisions and thus deprive Glaxo Wellcome of legitimate profit.
b. To refrain from using their position in Glaxo Wellcome or knowledge of Company
plans to advance their outside personal interests, that of their relatives, friends and
other businesses.
c. To avoid outside employment or other interests for income which would impair their
effective job performance.
d. To consult with Management on such activities or relationships that may lead to
conflict of interest.
1.1. Employee Relationships
Employees with existing or future relationships either by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees of
competing drug companies are expected to disclose such relationship to the Management. If management
perceives a conflict or potential conflict of interest, every effort shall be made, together by management
and the employee, to arrive at a solution within six (6) months, either by transfer to another department in
a non-counter checking position, or by career preparation toward outside employment after Glaxo
Wellcome. Employees must be prepared for possible resignation within six (6) months, if no other
solution is feasible.[19]
No reversible error can be ascribed to the Court of Appeals when it ruled that Glaxos policy prohibiting
an employee from having a relationship with an employee of a competitor company is a valid exercise of
management prerogative.
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
Glaxos 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, Glaxo only aims
to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and
procedures.
That Glaxo possesses the right to protect its economic interests cannot be denied. No less than the
Constitution recognizes the right of enterprises to adopt and enforce such a policy to protect its right to
reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth. [20] Indeed, while our laws endeavor to
give life to the constitutional policy on social justice and the protection of labor, it does not mean that
every labor dispute will be decided in favor of the workers. The law also recognizes that management
has rights which are also entitled to respect and enforcement in the interest of fair play. [21]
As held in a Georgia, U.S.A case,[22] it is a legitimate business practice to guard business confidentiality
and protect a competitive position by even-handedly disqualifying from jobs male and female applicants
or employees who are married to a competitor. Consequently, the court ruled than an employer that
discharged an employee who was married to an employee of an active competitor did not violate Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[23] The Court pointed out that the policy was applied to men and women
equally, and noted that the employers business was highly competitive and that gaining inside
information would constitute a competitive advantage.
The challenged company policy does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution as
petitioners erroneously suggest. It is a settled principle that the commands of the equal protection clause
are addressed only to the state or those acting under color of its authority.[24] Corollarily, it has been held
in a long array of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that the equal protection clause erects no shield against
merely private conduct, however, discriminatory or wrongful. [25] The only exception occurs when the
state[26] in any of its manifestations or actions has been found to have become entwined or involved in the
wrongful private conduct.[27] Obviously, however, the exception is not present in this case. Significantly,
the company actually enforced the policy after repeated requests to the employee to comply with the
policy. Indeed, the application of the policy was made in an impartial and even-handed manner, with due
regard for the lot of the employee.
In any event, from the wordings of the contractual provision and the policy in its employee handbook, 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. . . [28]
The Court of Appeals also correctly noted that the assailed company policy which forms part of
respondents Employee Code of Conduct and of its contracts with its employees, such as that signed by
Tecson, was made known to him prior to his employment. Tecson, therefore, was aware of that restriction
when he signed his employment contract and when he entered into a relationship with Bettsy. Since
Tecson knowingly and voluntarily entered into a contract of employment with Glaxo, the stipulations
therein have the force of law between them and, thus, should be complied with in good faith. [29] He is
therefore estopped from questioning said policy.
The Court finds no merit in petitioners contention that Tecson was constructively dismissed when he was
transferred from the Camarines Norte-Camarines Sur sales area to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan
del Sur sales area, and when he was excluded from attending the companys seminar on new products

which were directly competing with similar products manufactured by Astra. Constructive dismissal is
defined as a quitting, an involuntary resignation resorted to when continued employment becomes
impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely; when there is a demotion in rank or diminution in pay; or when a
clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. [30]
None of these conditions are present in the instant case. The record does not show that Tecson was
demoted or unduly discriminated upon by reason of such transfer. As found by the appellate court, Glaxo
properly exercised its management prerogative in reassigning Tecson to the Butuan City sales area:
. . . In this case, petitioners transfer to another place of assignment was merely in keeping with the policy
of the company in avoidance of conflict of interest, and thus validNote that [Tecsons] wife holds a
sensitive supervisory position as Branch Coordinator in her employer-company which requires her to
work in close coordination with District Managers and Medical Representatives. Her duties include
monitoring sales of Astra products, conducting sales drives, establishing and furthering relationship with
customers, collection, monitoring and managing Astras inventoryshe therefore takes an active
participation in the market war characterized as it is by stiff competition among pharmaceutical
companies. Moreover, and this is significant, petitioners sales territory covers Camarines Sur and
Camarines Norte while his wife is supervising a branch of her employer in Albay. The proximity of their
areas of responsibility, all in the same Bicol Region, renders the conflict of interest not only possible, but
actual, as learning by one spouse of the others market strategies in the region would be inevitable.
[Managements] appreciation of a conflict of interest is therefore not merely illusory and wanting in
factual basis[31]
In Abbott Laboratories (Phils.), Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[32] which involved a
complaint filed by a medical representative against his employer drug company for illegal dismissal for
allegedly terminating his employment when he refused to accept his reassignment to a new area, the
Court upheld the right of the drug company to transfer or reassign its employee in accordance with its
operational demands and requirements. The ruling of the Court therein, quoted hereunder, also finds
application in the instant case:
By the very nature of his employment, a drug salesman or medical representative is expected to travel.
He should anticipate reassignment according to the demands of their business. It would be a poor drug
corporation which cannot even assign its representatives or detail men to new markets calling for opening
or expansion or to areas where the need for pushing its products is great. More so if such reassignments
are part of the employment contract.[33]
As noted earlier, the challenged policy has been implemented by Glaxo impartially and disinterestedly for
a long period of time. In the case at bar, the record shows that Glaxo gave Tecson several chances to
eliminate the conflict of interest brought about by his relationship with Bettsy. When their relationship
was still in its initial stage, Tecsons supervisors at Glaxo constantly reminded him about its effects on his
employment with the company and on the companys interests. After Tecson married Bettsy, Glaxo gave
him time to resolve the conflict by either resigning from the company or asking his wife to resign from
Astra. Glaxo even expressed its desire to retain Tecson in its employ because of his satisfactory
performance and suggested that he ask Bettsy to resign from her company 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, Agusan del Sur, was
included. In effecting Tecsons transfer, Glaxo even considered the welfare of Tecsons family. Clearly,
the foregoing dispels any suspicion of unfairness and bad faith on the part of Glaxo. [34]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
Austria-Martinez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.

Puno (Chairman), J., in the result.

Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang and concurred in by Justices Conrado M. Vasquez,
Jr. and Mercedes Gozo-Dadole. Rollo,pp. 22-32.
[2]

Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO and Pedro A. Tecson, petitioners, v. Glaxo Wellcome

Now Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

[4]

Rollo, pp. 28-32.

[5]

Id. at 55.

[6]

Id. at 9.

[7]

Id. at 9-11.

[8]

Id. at 14-17.

[9]

Id. at 96-112.

[10]

Id. at 99-100.

[11]

Id. at 101-102.

[12]

Id. at 102-103.

[13]

Id. at 102-104.

[14]

Id. at 104-105.

[15]

Id. at 64.

[16]

Id. at 106-110.

[17]

See Decision of the Court of Appeals; Rollo, pp. 23-24.

[18]

Item No. 6 of Tecsons employment contract cited by the Court of Appeals in its Decision, Id.

[19]

Excerpt of Glaxos Employee Handbook, Annex A of respondents Comment, Id. at 114.

[20]

Section 3, Article XIII of the Constitution provides:

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its
just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and
to expansion and growth.
[21]

Sta. Catalina College v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 144483, November 19, 2003.

[22]

Emory v. Georgia Hospital Service Association (1971), DC Ga., 4 CCH EPD 7785, 4 BNA FEP Cas
891, affd (CA5) 446 F2d 897, 4 CCH EPD 7786; Cited 45 Am Jr 2d Sec. 469.
[23]

42 USCS 2000e2002e17. Title VII prohibits certain employers, employment agencies, labor
organizations, and joint labor-management training committees from discriminating against applicants
and employees on the basis of race or color, religion, sex, national origin, or opposition to discriminatory
practices.
There is no similar legislation in the Philippines.
[24]

Avery v. Midland County, 390 US 474, 20 L. Ed 2d 45, 88 S Ct 1114, on remand (Tex) 430 SW2d 487;
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1, 3 L Ed 2d 5, 78 S Ct 1401.
[25]

District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 US 418, 34 L.Ed.2d 613, 93 S. Ct. 602, 35 L.Ed.2d 694, 93 S. Ct.
1411; Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 US 163, 32 L.Ed.2d 627, 92 S. Ct. 1965; United States v. Price,
383 US 787, 16 L.Ed. 2d 267, 86 S. Ct. 1152; Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 US 715, 6
L.Ed.2d 45, 81 S. Ct. 856; Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 US 1, 92 L.Ed.1161, 68 S. Ct. 836, 3 ALR2d 441;
United States v. Classic, 313 US 299, 85 L.Ed 1368, 61 S. Ct. 1031, 86 L.Ed 565, 62 S. Ct. 51; Nixon v.
Condon, 286 US 73, 76 L.Ed. 984, 52 S. Ct. 484, 88 ALR 458; Iowa-Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Bennet,
284 US 239, 76 L.Ed 265, 52 S. Ct. 133; Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 US 323, 70 L.Ed. 969, 46 S. Ct. 521;
U.S. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., N.Y., 90 S. Ct. 1598, 398 U.S. 144, 26 L. Ed. 2d 142.
[26]

The equal protection clause contained in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is a
restriction on the state governments and operates exclusively upon them. It does not extend to authority
exercised by the Government of the United States. 16 A Am Jur 2d 742.
[27]

Gilmore v. Montgomery, 417 US 556, 41 L Ed 2d 304, 94 S Ct 2416; Evans v. Newton, 382 US 296,
15 L Ed 2d 373, 86 S Ct 486; Anderson v. Martin, 375 US 399, 11 L Ed 2d 430, 84 S Ct 454; Peterson v.
Greenville, 373 US 244, 10 L Ed 2d 323, 83 S Ct 1119; Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, supra
note 25.
[28]

Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, p. 28.

[29]

Article 1159, Civil Code. See National Sugar Trading and/or the Sugar Regulatory Administration v.
Philippine National Bank, G.R. No. 151218, January 18, 2003, 396 SCRA 528; Pilipinas Hino, Inc. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126570, August 18, 2000, 338 SCRA 355.
[30]

Leonardo v. National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. Nos. 125303, and 126937, June 16,
2000, 333 SCRA 589.
[31]

Rollo, pp. 30-31.

[32]

G.R. No. L-76959, October 12, 1987, 154 SCRA 713.

[33]

Id. at 719.

[34]

Decision of the Court of Appeals, Rollo, pp. 24-27.