Scribd
Upload
245 views1 page

Star Paper Vs Simbol Digest

Respondents were hired by Star Paper Corporation but were asked to resign after they married each other, due to the company's policy banning spouses from working at the same company. The issue is whether this policy is constitutional. The court ruled the policy was an invalid exercise of management prerogative, as it created a disproportionate effect and the company failed to prove the policy was reasonably necessary for business. Though the policy did not facially violate labor laws, married persons are protected under the constitution from discrimination despite the legislature not expressly prohibiting marital discrimination.

Uploaded by

Debz Perez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
245 views1 page

Star Paper Vs Simbol Digest

Respondents were hired by Star Paper Corporation but were asked to resign after they married each other, due to the company's policy banning spouses from working at the same company. The issue is whether this policy is constitutional. The court ruled the policy was an invalid exercise of management prerogative, as it created a disproportionate effect and the company failed to prove the policy was reasonably necessary for business. Though the policy did not facially violate labor laws, married persons are protected under the constitution from discrimination despite the legislature not expressly prohibiting marital discrimination.

Uploaded by

Debz Perez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

STAR PAPER CORP. vs SIMBOL ET AL.

G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006

Facts:

Petitioner Star Paper Corporation is a corporation engaged in trading principally of paper


products. It has a company policy promulgated in 1995, viz.:
1. New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has a relative,
up to the 3rd degree of relationship, already employed by the company.

2. In case of two of our employees (both singles, one male and another female)
developed a friendly relationship during the course of their employment and then
decided to get married, one of them should resign to preserve the policy stated
above.

Respondents were hired after they were found fit for the job, but were asked to
resign when they married a co-employee.

Issue:
WON the policy of the employer banning spouses from working in the same company is
constitutional.

Ruling:

The questioned policy may not facially violate Article 136 of the Labor Code but it creates
a disproportionate effect and under the disparate impact theory, the only way it could pass
judicial scrutiny is a showing that it is reasonable despite the discriminatory, albeit
disproportionate, effect.

Lastly, the absence of a statute expressly prohibiting marital discrimination in our


jurisdiction cannot benefit the petitioners. The protection given to labor in our jurisdiction is vast
and extensive that we cannot prudently draw inferences from the legislatures silence that
married persons are not protected under our Constitution and declare valid a policy based on a
prejudice or stereotype. Thus, for failure of petitioners to present undisputed proof of a
reasonable business necessity, we rule that the questioned policy is an invalid exercise of
management prerogative.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy