Love in the Time of Litigation:
Untangling the intricacies of company policies prohibiting or discouraging employees from engaging in workplace romances

By: Immanuel Christian V. Fontanilla, Atty. Lea Mona P. Chu, and Atty. Rhenelle Mae O. Operario

Justice Regalado in penning his decision pertaining to a very controversial case ¹ involving a school teacher who married her student and is fourteen (14) years her junior, stated: “If the two fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason itself does not know” and in concluding his decision likewise stated, “But definitely yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered a defiance of contemporary social mores.”

Despite the afore-cited case having been decided as early as 1990, a long line of jurisprudence still tackle issues equating romantic relationships as being immoral acts or in order to safekeep business and trade secrets thereto leading to the employee/s being terminated from service in lieu of their employer’s “company policies” which either discourage or outright prohibits the same.

As one may know of, love comes in all shapes and forms, and one manifestation of which can be found in the unique bond that may only be shared between co-workers. This connection is often fostered through mutual experiences wherein one who has been in a similar situation – sleepless nights to meet deadlines, navigating and coursing through difficult and stressful situations and celebrating blissful milestones, among others, it is but expected that these shared experiences would create a foundation of deep understanding and camaraderie which may eventually blossom into a deeper connection between the two.

Moreover, in the field of organizational psychology, a study conducted by Charles Pierce et. al., in 2003² revealed there is a direct correlation between the attitudes of employees towards romance and sexual intimacy at work and their levels of job satisfaction. ³

That said, workplace romances are a lot more complicated than it seems as there is a preconceived notion that as with any relationship experiencing its ups and downs, the same might affect not only the couple themselves but their work and organization as a whole, ultimately, negatively affecting the employer. It is this very reason alone why some employers expressly prohibit or discourage employees from engaging in a workplace romance – Which begs the question, can employers implement such policies or even dismiss an employee outright for engaging in such activities?.

As a primer thereto, the whole concept of this very topic is enshrined under the term “Management Prerogative”, in the case of St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc., vs. Maria Theresa V. Sanchez,⁴ to wit:

“The right of an employer to regulate all aspects of employment, aptly called “management prerogative” gives employers the freedom to regulate, according to their discretion and best judgment, all aspects of employment, including working assignment, working methods, processes to be followed, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.

xxx

Among the employer’s management prerogatives is the right to prescribe reasonable rules and regulations necessary or proper for the conduct of its business or concern, to provide certain disciplinary measures to implement said rules and to assure that the same would be complied with.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

Evidently, under the cloak of management prerogative, the employer exercises free reign over all matters relating to all aspects of employment, thus, can an employer, under the veil of management prerogative, dismiss an employee for engaging in a romantic relationship with an employee from a rival company?

Such issue had been extensively discussed and addressed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO and Pedro Tecson vs. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.,⁵ wherein Pedro Tecson (“Tecson”), was hired by Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., (“Glaxo”) who subsequently met and fell in love with Bettsy, an employee of Astra Pharmaceuticals, a rival company of Glaxo and yet, despite repeated warnings that such romantic relationship entails a conflict of interest, the two still persisted and got married which prompted their respective companies to require either one of them to resign from his/her respective job in order to avoid such conflict of interest.

The Honorable Supreme Court ultimately held that Glaxo had to guard its business and trade secrets, thus, the prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies and Glaxo’s employees was reasonable under the circumstances due to its nature that might compromise the interests of the company.

In addition thereto, the Honorable Supreme Court likewise supported the constitutional right of Glaxo to enforce such policy to protect their rights to reasonable returns on investments and growth, to quote:

“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. 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.” ⁶ (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)

Clearly, in the afore-cited case, there is a qualifying circumstance wherein there is a conflict of interest due to the couple being employed by competing companies, thus, the dismissal was upheld by the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, what Glaxo ultimately seeks to avoid is the accompanying conflict of interest relative to their business and trade secrets, thus a valid exercise of its management prerogative.

In contrast thereto, in the case of Zaida R. Inocente vs. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc., ⁷ the Honorable Supreme Court declared that the Non-Fraternization Rule enacted by St. Vincent, while not violative of its right to exercise its management prerogative as the same merely discouraged romantic relationships between its employees, such instance cannot be used to terminate the employment of Zaida for failure to prove that their relationship was immoral in and off itself.

In deciding upon the same, the Honorable Supreme Court considered the facts surrounding her relationship with her husband, which clearly shows the sincerity and honesty of their relationship completely eliminating the fact that their actuations were tainted with immorality. Such immorality was ultimately what St. Vincent would like to prevent upon their enactment of the Non-Fraternization Policy, but ultimately while not sufficiently proven, still dismissed Zaida to her damage and prejudice.

A comparison of the two afore-quoted jurisprudence would reveal that while such policy may be a valid exercise of an employer’s management prerogative, the same could not immediately be used as a way of terminating an employee for violation thereof.

In the case of Tecson vs. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., such prohibition was considered as a valid exercise of management prerogative in order to protect their business and trade secrets taking into account that a conflict of interest is apparent in the relationship between Tecson and his wife clearly being employed by competing companies, thus rendering his dismissal as valid.

On the other hand, in the case of Zaida R. Inocente vs St. Vincent, the Non-Fraternization Policy while declared as a valid exercise of management prerogative, the Honorable Supreme Court nonetheless found that Zaida had been illegally dismissed, reasoning that her lawful marital relationship with her husband, did not amount to immorality precisely the circumstance that St. Vicent had initially sought to prevent.

Such ruling reaffirms the constitutional right to security of tenure of an employee which cannot be undermined by moral ambiguities, thus, employers must establish clear and valid grounds before they may dismiss an employee on the ground of immorality.

Now, in a more recent case, a company enacted an “Exogamy policy” wherein their employees who subsequently marry, the employment of one spouse must immediately be terminated to prevent clientele secrets from being disclosed with other employees.

In the case of Catherine Dela Cruz-Cagampan vs. One Network Bank, Inc.,⁸ wherein Catherine married her co-worker, Audie, after the effectivity of the “Exogamy Policy” suddenly terminated the employment of Catherine without any other explanation other than she married her co-worker which eventually prompted her to file a case for illegal dismissal. In deciding the case, the Honorable Supreme Court held that the Exogamy Policy was violative of the Magna Carta of Women and Article 134 of the Labor Code regarding stipulations prohibiting marriage as such policy would essentially equate to illegal dismissal, to quote:

“ARTICLE. 134. Stipulation against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage.”

xxx

“enforcing an arbitrary no-spouse employment rule that directs the immediate dismissal of an employee who marries a co-worker cannot be justified. That is illegal dismissal.”

Clearly, based on the afore-quoted case, our laws do not cower behind the all-encompassing term of “Management Pregogative.” While in several instances, the courts may allow such policies to be enforced, a limitation had clearly been set in place wherein if these policies would already be violative of an individual’s constitutional right to privacy and security of tenure, these policies must be struck down for being contrary to law as is the case in the afore-quoted jurisprudence.

Our Constitution serves as the ultimate safeguard of individual rights, and no policy or law, regardless of its intention or convenience, can remain in force if it would lead to the undermining of the very fundamental rights our Constitution seeks to protect.

Taking all of these into consideration, it goes without saying that there is still no clear-cut rule expressly prohibiting companies from enacting policies relating to workplace romances. Nonetheless, jurisdictional safeguards have been put in place to prevent the undue advantage of the same by employers. More so at a crucial time where individuals have become increasingly aware of their rights and interests, it is imperative that employers likewise evolve alongside the shifting idealism of societal values and expectations.

It is exactly through this growing focus on self-worth and freedom which calls upon employers to not only comply within precedents already established but also to conform with ethical principles which governs our society. It is through this very manner where employers may build a trustworthy and secure environment not only towards its stakeholders but also through their very own employees which build the very foundation of these companies. In line with the ever changing tides of social awareness and legal progress, these employers must continuously re-assess and re-examine their policies and protocols ensuring that the same are up to legal and ethical standards to keep up with our constantly evolving norms that define our very society.

¹ Evelyn Chua-Qua vs. Hon. Jacobo C. Clave and Tay Tung High School, Inc., (G.R. No. 49549, 30 August 1990)

² Pierce, C and Aguinis, H. 2003. “Romantic Relationships in Organizations” Management Research 1(2) pp. 161-169. Retrieved from: https://www.hermanaguinis.com/pdf/MR2003.pdf

³ Lee-Chua. 2024. “Do not ban workplace romance” Retrieved from: https://business.inquirer.net/491203/do-not-ban-workplace-romance

⁴ St. Luke’s Medical Center, Inc., vs. Maria Theresa V. Sanchez (G.R. No. 212054, 11 March 2015)

⁵ Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO vs Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., (G.R. No. 162994, 17 September 2004).

⁶ Id

⁷ Zenaida R. Inocente vs. St. Vincent Foundation for Children and Aging, Inc., (G.R. No. 202621, 22 June 2016)

⁸ Catherine Dela Cruz-Cagampan vs. One Network Bank, Inc., (G.R. No. 217414, 22 June 2022)

OUR MAIN OFFICE

Contact Us

Address

Opening Hours

Quick links