Gabriel Aubrey L.

Ceniza September 19, 2019

TH002 INDUREL

OLYMPIA GUALBERTO vs. MARINDUQUE MINING & INDUSTRIAL CORP.

23 CAR 528 June 28, 1978

FACTS:

The company employed plaintiff Olympia Gualberto as a dentist in 1971 while

she was still single. She married Roberto, another employee (electrical engineer) of the
company, in 1972. The company informed her that she was regarded to have resigned
her office, invoking the firm’s policy that stipulated that female employees were
regarded to automatically terminate their employment the moment they got married.
Olympia filed a claim for compensation.

The Court of Appeals not only upheld her claim for damages but also awarded
exemplary damages, and held, inter alia: ‘No employer may require female applicants
for jobs to enter into pre-employment arrangements that they would be dismissed once
they get married and afterwards expect the Courts to sustain such an agreement.’

ISSUE:
Whether or not an employer may terminate an employee by reason of marriage.

HELD:
No.
The Court made references to the Civil Code, the Woman and Child Labor Act and the
1935 Constitution of the Philippines. In light of this the Court further stated: ‘The
agreement which the appellants want this Court to sustain on appeal is an example of
discriminatory chauvinism. Acts which deny equal employment opportunities to women
because of their sex are inherently odious and must be struck down.
**Pandagdag. The following is cited from another case Philippine Telegraph and
Telephone Company vs NLRC (G.R. No. 118978)

The judgment of the Court of Appeals in Gualberto, et al. vs. Marinduque Mining &
Industrial Corporation considered as void a policy of the same nature. In said case,
respondent, in dismissing from the service the complainant, invoked a policy of the firm
to consider female employees in the project it was undertaking as separated the
moment they get married due to lack of facilities for married women. Respondent further
claimed that complainant was employed in the project with an oral understanding that
her services would be terminated when she gets married. Branding the policy of the
employer as an example of discriminatory chauvinism tantamount to denying equal
employment opportunities to women simply on account of their sex, the appellate court
struck down said employer policy as unlawful in view of its repugnance to the Civil
Code, Presidential Decree No. 148 and the Constitution.

References

"Why Do I Rush to Slow Down Everything?". (2019). Labor Digested Cases (RE:
Working Conditions and Wages). [online] Available at:
https://atticustoo.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/labor-digested-cases-re-working-
conditions-and-wages/ [Accessed 23 Sep. 2019].