THE Supreme Court (SC) has declared that the “no spouse” employment policy of employers is “discriminatory” unless there is a reasonable business necessity.
Thus, the Court’s Second Division through Associate Justice Marvic Leonen issued a decision ordering the reinstatement of petitioner Catherine dela Cruz-Cagampan to her former position in One Network Bank Inc. (ONBI).
The SC’s decision set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) ruling issued on July 31, 2014, which reversed the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) findings that Cagampan was illegally dismissed.
The Court directed the respondent ONBI to pay her backwages, her proportionate 13thmonth pay for 2010, allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent from the time she was illegally dismissed on February 17, 2010.
The SC also said Cagampan is also entitled to attorney’s fees of 10 percent of the total monetary award, subject to legal interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the finality of the decision until full payment.
The Court did not give merit to the argument of the bank that petitioner’s marriage to her fellow employee places the bank’s funds at risk for possible embezzlement.
Such, assertion, according to the Court, must be based on facts and not on mere speculations.
“Friends, lovers and couples share secrets. Any bank employee may potentially craft elaborate schemes to embezzle the bank’s funds. While a bank must observe high standards of diligence, enforcing an arbitrary no-spouse employment rule that directs the immediate dismissal of an employee who marries a coworker cannot be justified. That is illegal dismissal,” the SC said.
Based on record, Cagampan married her coworker Audie Angelo, who served as a loan specialist in ONBI, on October 31, 2009, or five years after she was hired as an accounting specialist.
On November 4, 2009, the couple requested permission from ONBI President Alex Buenaventura to continue working for the bank, similar to that given to other couples in its office.
They even suggested that Augie Angelo be transferred to other ONBI branches. The request, however, was denied and Cagampan was terminated from her work.
The petitioner sought reconsideration, pointing out that the no-spouse policy cannot be applied to her case because she was employed prior to its effectivity.
She stressed that the policy contradicts Article 134 of the Labor Code, which prohibits practices that discriminate against marriage.
However, ONBI did not entertain petitioner’s appeal prompting her to file an illegal dismissal case with the NLRC.
The NLRC eventually declared that Cagampan was illegally dismissed and ordered ONBI to reinstate her.
The bank elevated the case before the CA, which in turn, reversed the NLRC decision.
The appellate court declared that ONBI’s policy was a valid exercise of management prerogative.
Since ONBI must observe the highest degree of diligence in handling its affairs, the CA explained, the policy is necessary to protect the confidential information of its clients and minimize risks from married co-employees whose communication is privileged.
In reversing the CA’s decision, the SC stressed under the Magna Carta of Women, the state commits to eliminate discrimination against women and ensures their right to freely choose a spouse.
It noted that in implementing its no-spouse policy, ONBI decided to terminate the petitioner’s employment and retained her husband.
In particular, ONBI’s policy states, “When two employees working for One Network Bank are subsequently married through Church or Civil Court rites, one must terminate employment immediately after marriage.”
“To stress, they opted to terminate petitioner’s employment sans any reason why she must leave, in lieu of her husband. An employer’s dismissal of a female employee solely because of her marriage is precisely the discrimination that the Labor Code expressly prohibits. This Court cannot countenance respondents’ unlawful act,” the SC declared.
The Court also reminded employers that while they may have discretion and judgment in managing their affairs, “their exercise of this right to management prerogative must be in accord with justice and fair play.”
The SC also ruled that ONBI failed to demonstrate the reasonable business necessity for its no-spouse employment policy since it is not related to the bank’s essential operation of business.
“It unduly discourages all employees from marrying a fellow worker under the pain of termination,” the SC pointed out.
Image credits: Mike Gonzalez via Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA-3.0