Oo 6 And €4 wot sees Oot agree wae oh. Salcatsatr sare: marie se an courte sew rotary > soemaget bs Se spdanates ot pic, as id om cat tniinns case te Szowre Coun ws eter a such appeals 2 Sracbeaieasa naitr o otcy ihetac,pemeves at ne assaied Seowen oretaton te ‘Trortesnary ton aneranr 34/2 ror ecest rec! bye cares prnanarsgrecase te ave (er ck acon for caer + unas aces rot sect ype neh wc ue again sh Seuccblane secon casera specter ch eserabe Seeyand Puen months, ung sezant he re Matha ex rom enabengng by way Sorrmason of te ace complaned op to he msttuton fe proc atevimmediately enecutory even penaing appeal Amang thi Suyere'payrott to vensrto wom sons Sse by te Srey e U.P. LAW LIBRAt VOLE No rE EiZ ~ gal (Lee.igay FROW Z/ALCITA-VUSECOTO PTA. THE EVOLVING RULE AGAINST MARITAL DISCRIMINATION by Francis ¥. SobreviAas 92.208 Supreme Coun avciaas ne ah acton ter amages nant, we Dy her incluang fotoming claus: +1 unaerstan 9 rites as a singe lemaie Inte even wage you may formate me fmployment ss bo antag ton cre Benefes weugraten whch waa acc Smentones smeral and seg sgrowment i the corto eo The lower court eis teaton tat tha trplye XE twas agama he burn nt Dank was Rotimpteageg nme cae absolving the bank oer tort nt nat repugnant eneral manager it avessag tat On appeal neo at the empoynria ° “inthis view ol the iigaton, we fina t unnecessary to decide the issue extensively discussed in the brels, whother the employment clause is in restraint of mariage andr conraveres ‘Buble policy, That issue wouls be a proper subject or debate 9 Droceeaing against the Bank, the ue empiyer 9! paint. To ‘consider the point now, would be unla to said Bank, which nt ‘reserty Deore ine Cour to dene te side ofthe dobsta.” e U.P. LAW LISKAR Tis time, rung fr the eneioyee the Seratary of Labor nes 2.8 The tomnsion of compinant Zak is untenable The poley of raguiatcn swvated by vasoondont company sn terminating her dinates ace 195 te Labor Codex lad i fuera encerea utenble by Seebon 9, Arle 2 of he Canettaion It was not until 1976, when a simi issue, ie. spulation agains ane vastiage, was raised balore the Secretar o Labor ane Employment. In Zilla Philippine Airlines, Ine,” PAL cischarged ong of fs ntarnaional light ‘ewardesses on account of her mariage. cing company poley whch rovdes Actual rpondentcomgany caims tits concem isnot so much agaist the coninuoa employment lhe fight tendants merely by reason of ner marsage, ve» lve the meviasle Consequences of mariage" the atte af pregnancy which fudees the deepest concern ol management 1D. _ Fight Anendarts.: Fight arendant applicants most be single. Fight atenaante woo sutomaveaty separated om fempioymentin th event ey subseauerty get marie, ‘Accocing to PAL the foregring potoy i lowed under Arle 132 ol hs Ce pau bound but actualy hacer sssnphan. Cleary Ye get arid Aoos nt rmcestariy mean fe ge pregnant. One ean gt pregnant vetheut geting mame: in Ise sme woy one eam bet mare without geting pega _ “ART. 132. Faces for naman.» The Secretary at Labor snail esapish standards that wil esute the salty and heal of ramen employess In approprs eases, he sha, by reguatons In fat in the age of fy planning, a marries Fight nna tol have at bt ras a Pg ‘The employee, onthe other hans, savokod Arle 135 (naw 196) _abor Code, a8 Ialows an, 196 Stplaton agin mariage. - hal be ul 1 ear raqurevas a condiion of ampoymant oF toro sine empaymant that a woman empioyee sa 0% oe connate apt ames Ftc at upon getiNg ATES ae Ommpayas snave ceeried ree-gned of saraee of © 4 say Tose acnrge senate o ebaraee Bh iS Star employee mer by reacon of Her mat 5 (on appel the Offer of se Prose temas ia 1977 the Secretary ot Labors deston ana dete “Oo fist inpresson ws we compat of the respondents poky or ragulaon wth he col promsian af aw. Respondent is a fae in coin i sr 130 he Labor Cove ales Ten genmeren ptr re paar resents: PER brehbian aguas raoge corte engaged if exacrdinary onaoetng he pesustes thn chose protssenie cannot subscribe tothe ne of reasoning pursued by tespondent. al along Ht knew tht the conteverted pokey fe, Mteady mets doom as eaty as March 13,1973 ten Prenser Decree No. 146, otherwise known as s8ie decree, which amend parsgrapl (et Scotian 12 Republi ‘Act No. 679, reveals that ‘it's exactly the seme prowsion ‘produced verbatim in Arce 135 0! ha Labor Code, whieh nas Bromulgated en May 1, 1974 9 take ehact sa (6) mori later I cannot be ginsls, win he ratoraton of the same Bxoiion te nem tbot Cat pokes and separ fae Sees wep! and teeter abionins ioe ice Se ees the Secotary f Labor to ebay sacs wale eee he Ssity and oath af woman emeyecs a apponnecase fall by reguatenrequre employe is soomene appestte tun sandr for tema n speci cccgon seas those o ant atendart at tat © preeiy re aor hat tates agaist pac irspancrt he sander have ot tower etaones apm nor fn acting ht Its togicalto presume that, tne absence of sid stance cor regulations which are as yet to be established, te policy cf Fespondent against mariage ic patent 98, sons cm cg ene ppt Bek aah tearnor neers Seta Sevetannae Seana iar tar $s esl LIBRATS ae ‘ma vain tems to ve maaning tits position, respondent wont as far as invoking the prowions ct Arles 2 and Si oo ‘New Gil Code onthe praseriton of marriage ae an invcabis Social insthuion and the fomuiy as a basie social neviston, Fespectvely, as bases forts polcy of non-mariiage: I both instanees respondent podia‘e= absence ofa tight ateadare voy her home for eng periods o tine 6 conto toa antago ‘marie ite, Mss pure cenyecturs notoased on actu concen 2nsidetng that, a tis mason od, sopnisesed tecnoaigy has narrowed te estance trom one place ta another. Alorooney, ‘espendent overookoa the fet tat shuns High aeons oo Progra nerves to adapt prevanig cucumatances and ovata Anise 198 ls not intended to apply only to women eme Ployed in ordinary occupations, ur it shoul nave categriealy expressed 30. The scping ntsnament of te ane ee ee, spec of ordinary eccupetcns,setacted inthe while tert ate sungorted by Aci 135 mat specks of non-ascrmnahon anne femployment of women” Subsequenty, in Gualberto, et aw. ta \duque tining & Industriat Sorperation! the Cour ot Aapeci recognited ine Ag of mene ea Sscharged for various renzonsatvicuabie to marrage’ in atenee eka company employed palit wnen sre wae atl angie tater ran nore lovohing a poly of the comany wvcn cons es doe to ann at ee ‘marred women, female erpioyees a: Separated aon elt marnage: oreo, company dismissed plant. Been “150 savored to te oral codrstandans at aint hat she would be teernated ane gets mare ‘The Apolo Count doc <0 ovo pa and la “The ors of he detertarto ssteguish beween a verbal Bresamployan prsemen othe pj engneer ane pe us at al. Whether prerciovmertsqcomen er company es ie Mra toi Angie sorcws wo renpatan Sea Sh ‘equally legal and void. eo eee No emptor may eguie 19 pre-employment agreomert ree Mey get marieg as sen whey would be damssed 1 erpeet he Cours fo sustaltsuch an agreement. Neither may an employer ask a fomale employee to sign an undated tetera rsigeaion which would be aceapted ance she gots martes “The lower coun cted various reasons. stated thatthe Women ang Chita Labor Law proniots ciscriminaton against ‘women in tespect to terms and conditions of employment 09 Secount of sex Business and Indust facies ao requrad 1 provide facts for marned woman. = slayt under Seton 12 Of Republic Act 679 fo eeharge s woman for various stated feasons atibutable fo marrage. The lower Coun cited huran fights in the Universal Declaration of Human Fights and provisions in tho Givi Code on The family being & basi soca Eston, on no eustem af agraoment destructive of te imi Dbeing gwen ettact onal presumption faving te slaty ot he family, and on tne Courts fostering the mutual asistance of rmembare ofthe family to one arate. “The appaliant i mstakan 9 “otng that pio to PO 148 no law pronbieda pe-employment coat hat upon gettng mares '3 woman's employment would be terminated. ection ten Secice .aeN Sones eae Se erect net wane hepomer cna ae mun colren se See ease eaten Te agrecenent which te sppeants want this Co 12 usta on agpea! isan example of acriminatory ehawinisn BSS whch cen equal enptnyen! paren 0 waren SY Bor smatmarnage wa oh women employees: Male Strployees were not ejamed trom 9nd. (Only act May 23, 197, he ln pre Bem! me Supreme Cour led Matan enpayers Po scat of Pikippine Telegraph ct accoping ot coniing a8 equa Hom wrk any waman worker sacs mmage ans fou oe tost and he nghtaganay dscransan, can” tacts n PTET ae ows Grace de Gasman wa hy sedby PTET as arotverior axed prc an 190 nt YEN n September 19st, ae ned PTAT a a prebatoror enoyee, he pooataray gored 0 vet 150 aya nthe fb appscaon fr ithe sceonahed te maya srcomenta teh ead ogre uns oy 01981 hen te opp cover ue mal sats the rorch susan sett the onBioyee a ‘eroransum egeing hart expian he ropancy mu maaan he ra poy rearang mared went i na done has Nr ne employee Ned a comelant or soya! oamssal which cnarge was “stan by te Labor Arte wn ld tot “he had ren anes esata 1 vega” employee when she sa unis) Tormnated an oserinnated ‘gst on aechunt of har hewng cotsces ncaa m wolanon of company (On appeal tothe NUAC. sac egency uonela the Labor Arter and ruled int merempoyes Ra ingeed on he suet fan nt and nia se the quaiietion that te employee dovervt to be suspended forte Inonre in'wew of the ashonest nature ot ner aete whieh should not be Conones hal er respects, he LAC stimed tre decison ofthe Labor inter. nelusing the order fo" the empovees rnstatement. ts maton fot nsieaion angen deny "RC. Pa ment upto he Supreme The High Tuna! stared by cain the gaen says in the Conetitution © The © ot protectve provisions” Ur also tutned tg attention tO Me ‘Sosser sty tal Nave emerge th rally, the Coun dae rowsne ofthe Labor Coe 2 theights of women oe 190 wough 138 meres! fi“in the case at bar, pentoner’s potcy ot not accepting or considering a= disqualied from mork any woman worker Who ontacts mamage fun afoul ot ine test of and the night ag fiscrmnaton afforded all women workers by our labor laws and by no less than the Constutien. Contary 19 petiona'sageorion ‘mat f asmssea pavate respondent om employment’on account Company ware diasaives plicpaly because of th eompany s policy that marned women are not quate for employment rar and not merely because of het supposas acts f dishonest, Trt ws ene os fon be arn snc re a ra OSS He Ss Fe ey een eas rence Caan cera erat sesene ave etacmte sommes reer cels cacyta sorigusraays gota tetctig sy where ate sshd aaa ee tora seman ese te can ee ey a sing maton seaaansStoh ne ay sca at inde sre ee ee rage wa ace mat rege cece wagers reget ane wiser rte atl eee ee gd nus Tretetertuge for causes which 3 fuse te amet got" enave a nouow 5 amanes grate responce, oot Ee Scroncnne ae concn tt hee SSreequert ioe a cortiience n net w cn shea er 3 Pettoner would asseverie,teioor, that whe it nas nothing gaint! marnage, noneinaios: takes umbrage over the Saceaimont eat tac Ths prot reasoning. wn erst ‘atnchons.penurbs tie Cout scr pvt fxpondent ray wall be mide a ela tha hs ungutaton of hehonesty shou be the ter way around” Contrued we Court Pattioner mould nave tne Court batiove tat amough private respondent cei ie ley agantt fs femala employees: Eonactngmamage. what could be an act insubordination wa inconsequential What Subauts as unforgivable is ner con ‘Senment of that marae sume time, deciarg that marmage a ara mat hich «supposedly has no object. Inotner woros, PTT says wes ss blessings tos female stroma carracing argo, sexute he matty eves ang ‘ier benette f wows conseaverty respond for un which Sovoushyk woud nave wanted 2 avon that employee confes Ses seh tact of manage rate #1 be no sanction, but uch fmoloyee conceals tne sare sstoad ot proceeding tothe Con fesbonal, ahe wl be demsses Ts wi of reasoning Goes not fs eatecing toe naragernent poscy oF Pat we a “This Cout show Le spared te enn tained reasoning and tha tedum of proyentons nhc cose tough tse Pan and arguments, ince. potter Qorses over he Tact hat (tos sur poly aginst nnd woman, both one aspects ‘SFauaiscaton ang etenion, ch compete prvae vespondent to conoeal her auperienint manage. mas, Rowever, tat ny Doley alone whic mos he cause ol prwate respondents secetve ZErduet mow complamed oa men apropos fe recal he fair Styngihathe wno.s te couse othe cause s te cause ct the ev causos" Inverestingy enough, the Cou ohcted ypon and adoted ne rational ‘avon ote caer Tung" Balls PAL” tnd Gualbertov. Marinduaue ‘ining & Industral Corp.” 99 sss0/eu at PTAT's pokey “i not ony in Geingnion of he provisions of Ace 136 of tre Lar Code an he ig woran obe re om any hn does t daptve a wor wo enooge her satu & aert ‘Vie == aéf tvilege that by all accounts inheres in the inavidual as an Intangible and inalienable rignt Monee, while iis tue that ne artes to a contract may estabien any agreements terme, and Conditions that ey may deem eonveneri the same choca gok oe {contrary to law. moral, good customs, pubic ore or pb peice Carried to ts logical consequences, may even Se-eaie tn Bettioner’s poicy against legitimate marta! bons woud orem ‘ag@ ile oF common-iaw relations and subvert the sacamen® mamage Parenheticay, he Ct Cote proven on he cnt ot labor state hatte rlaons etaeon ne paras ht of and labor, ate not merely contacts, impressed as) et 20 much pubic trot thas sane sul) yt oe conor {ood gous onto moe tat nha capt er aor sow st fi ol Sresnon apna nt fr mp ye onverence of th pole nine fal econ, he sage tet Sona poy aga marioga lowadoy setna’ Stats at Stes othe very essoce eae avd supose ol artage sa involsle socal nstueen an tsa ef fay atthe {oundatlon le nation Tra use efeciey mired ere imate mock Gauees or cucortid ome tr caesar nut ean he ans ede oy ot ot ts ay clear mat Arle 95 of me Labor Cod prone ciation by easen of ne mariage ena employe. n PTA" te stpulon or poly” esc ‘Taohasizes that te governmant"abto's ay sh ® ‘ital discemnaton. nich votes, inter al, te pipe of 31 os tert ooperunty aug n Ace WI Seton 9 te peer ana td exited nie 3 oe Labor Code. To he exten este, sed a drect burden on ne employees mariage ana went agains Sein na Constuon Ya poy. seep en) ‘> be nlawful n vew oft epugnance to he Consttuion ana statey i aleta-Yuseco," cant eh ne prorulgton ot PTAT 49ers ahr Zetaanee" BicZingto on den echng efoto nprors th pig tour women ‘een atotmnates agaist by reason © marrage. Truly. cut cours an ve onorabie and primary prin thf. bringing fudcial agencies have playe process. ~ PROTECTION TO LABOR, sie AS EXENPLIFIED BY THE ™ 1995 AND 1996 LABOR DECISIONS fi 4 by Josephus 8. Jimenez’ THE FOUR DIMENSIONS OF THESTATE'S The Constutons! manda cf for protection to labor 8 enshrined in 2 urdamenta aw a ea, tas rterated wth more wgor in 1987 Suen mandates werd mage ac bass for tne enactment of ie Cabot Code.” as wall ag its amendatory usciees, Bates Pambansa, ieee of Instructions and tw Tey have isso epeately moked josly decors "avorable obo, Protection te labor, 28 on ujections and attacks grounds ght of Supposed erosion of mariagern labor na anny Been upheld "ution ofthe employers! propery thas withstood several ess ans hs remained one of te impregnable bashons ta insulate labor tom the escesses of employers unos Woeeee od goverrment bureaucrats. thas ainays bean ehectwe lp eiang ates teen, Parmbulconsequenees otis own iuderce and lack af foresgrt Tly mee Dyotecton to abo is by tar ta ma cloguutcupression af he comnpeones ind soictous eoneern ofa “paren straw” or the abiding Gavoee a ne "eres othe woking cass i even tose in tho bureaucracies m ‘uty comprenend its meaning ano ‘hs weatse t hlp elucidate onic 2 os both labor and management, ane dt 10 wnforee Sate prateevon, do not ston. ris the jective then of {81sec on law and jurisprudence, there are four (8) emerging dimensions of Stat protects for abo. na at