Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

PT&T Vs NLRC

Grace de Guzman was hired multiple times as a temporary employee by PT&T. When she applied for a permanent position, she indicated she was single even though she had married earlier that year. PT&T dismissed her for violating their policy against married women. The NLRC ordered her reinstatement, finding the dismissal illegal. The court affirmed, stating that marriage is a protected status and employers cannot discriminate or dismiss employees solely due to marital status.

Uploaded by

Jedyne Tejada
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

PT&T Vs NLRC

Grace de Guzman was hired multiple times as a temporary employee by PT&T. When she applied for a permanent position, she indicated she was single even though she had married earlier that year. PT&T dismissed her for violating their policy against married women. The NLRC ordered her reinstatement, finding the dismissal illegal. The court affirmed, stating that marriage is a protected status and employers cannot discriminate or dismiss employees solely due to marital status.

Uploaded by

Jedyne Tejada
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PT&T vs.

NLRC and Grace de Guzman

Facts:

PT&T initially hired Grace de Guzman as a reliever for an employee who had a
maternity leave from November 1990 to April 1991. From June 10-July 1991 and from
July 19-August 8, 1991, she was again engaged by the said company to relieve another
employee who took a leave on both periods. In September of the same year, Pt&T hired
de Guzman as a probationary employee. In the job application form that she filled up for
the said hiring, she indicated her civil status to be “single” even though she got married
in May of 1991. It was later found out that de Guzman also indicated the same civil
status for her June and July engagements.

Petitioner PT&T sent a memorandum to de Guzman, requiring her to explain the


abovementioned discrepancy. She was reminded about the company’s policy of not
accepting married women for employment. In her reply letter, 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.

NLRC held that de Guzman was illegally dismissed, and ordered her reinstatement and
payment of backwages and COLA. NLRC denied PT&T’s motion for reconsideration.
Hence, this case.

Issue:

WON de Guzman may be dismissed on the ground of her marital status

Held:

De Guzman was entitled to reinstatement and the payment of backwages. She should
not have been dismissed because of her marital status.

Ratio Decidendi:

Article 1 of the Family Code provides that marriage is a special contract, the foundation
of the family and an inviolable social institution. Hence, it cannot be restricted by
discriminatory policies of private individuals or corporations. Therefore, it is unlawful
for PT&T, and for any employer, to prejudice an employee merely by reason of
marriage.

You might also like