[G.R. No. 162994.

September 19, 2005]

DUNCAN ASSOCIATION vs. GLAXO

Facts:

Petitioner Pedro Tecson was employed in 1995 by respondent as a medical representative. Upon
his employment, Tecson signed an employment contract, wherein he agreed, among others, to
study and abide by existing company rules; to disclose to management any existing or future
relationship by consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees of competing drug
companies; and if management found that such relationship posed a possible conflict of interest,
to resign from the company.

Nonetheless, Tecson became romantically involved with Bettsy, an employee of a rival

pharmaceutical firm. The two eventually married in September of 1998. The relationship,
including the subsequent marriage, was cause for consternation to Glaxo. On January 1999,
Tecson's superiors informed him that his marriage to Bettsy had given rise to a conflict of interest.
In September 1999, petitioners application for transfer for another department of the respondent
was denied. Instead, he was transferred to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area.

Issue:

WON an employer may impose conditions, restrictions or consequences on an employee by reason

of the latter's choice to marry or choice of spouse.

Ruling:

The answer would really all depend on the particular circumstances in each case. The
considerations which may have impelled the employer to impose such conditions on the
employee's absolute right to marry warrant examination as well.

While generalities may be sufficient to strike down the most obnoxious of prohibitions, those
restrictions that are geared towards maintaining valid economic concerns of the employer have to
be assessed on a case to case basis. Our fundamental law respects 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.

If the rationale in question relates to a consideration so vital to the interests of the employer as to
warrant legal protection, it should then be determined whether the means employed by the
employer are reasonable enough as to allow a measure of balance between these key interests of
the employer and the fundamental right of the employee to marry.