DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO and PEDRO A.

TECSON, petitioners, 
vs.
GLAXO WELLCOME PHILIPPINES, INC., Respondent.
FACTS: Petitioner Pedro A. Tecson (Tecson) was hired by respondent Glaxo
Wellcome Philippines, Inc. (Glaxo) as medical representative on October 24, 1995,
after Tecson had undergone training and orientation.
Thereafter, Tecson signed a contract of employment which stipulates, among
others, that he agrees 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 should management find
that such relationship poses a possible conflict of interest, to resign from the company.
Code of Conduct of Glaxo similarly provides these conditions; that otherwise, the
management and the employee will explore the possibility of a “transfer to another
department in a non-counterchecking position” or preparation for employment outside
the company after six months.
Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxo’s products in the Camarines Sur-
Camarines Norte sales area. Subsequently, Tecson entered into a romantic relationship
with Bettsy, an employee of Astra Pharmaceuticals3(Astra), a competitor of Glaxo.
Bettsy was Astra’s Branch Coordinator in Albay. She supervised the district managers
and medical representatives of her company and prepared marketing strategies for
Astra in that area.
Even before they got married, Tecson received several reminders from his District
Manager regarding the conflict of interest which his relationship with Bettsy might
engender. Still, love prevailed, and Tecson married Bettsy in September 1998.
Tecson’s superior reminded him that he and Bettsy should decide which one of them
would resign from their jobs. Tecson requested for time to comply with the company
policy against entering into a relationship with an employee of a competitor company.
He explained that Astra, Bettsy’s employer, was planning to merge with Zeneca,
another drug company; and Bettsy was planning to avail of the redundancy package to
be offered by Astra.
Tecson again requested for more time resolve the problem. Thereafter, Tecson applied
for a transfer in Glaxo’s milk division, thinking that since Astra did not have a milk
division, the potential conflict of interest would be eliminated. His application was
denied in view of Glaxo’s “least-movement-possible” policy.
Glaxo transferred Tecson to the Butuan City-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area.
Tecson asked Glaxo to reconsider its decision, but his request was denied. Tecson
defied the transfer order and continued acting as medical representative in the
Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE CASE: Because the parties failed to resolve the issue at
the grievance machinery level, they submitted the matter for voluntary arbitration, but
Tecson declined the offer. On November 15, 2000, the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB) rendered its Decision declaring as valid Glaxo’s policy on
relationships between its employees and persons employed with competitor
companies, and affirming Glaxo’s right to transfer Tecson to another sales territory.
CA sustained; MR denied.
Petitioner’s Contention: that Glaxo’s policy against employees marrying employees of
competitor companies violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because
it creates invalid distinctions among employees on account only of marriage. They
claim that the policy restricts the employees’ right to marry; that Tecson was
constructively dismissed
GLAXO argues: that the company policy prohibiting its employees from having a
relationship with and/or marrying an employee of a competitor company is a valid
exercise of its management prerogatives and does not violate the equal protection
clause;
The policy is also aimed at preventing a competitor company from gaining access to
its secrets, procedures and policies; that Tecson can no longer question the assailed
company policy because when he signed his contract of employment, he was aware
that such policy was stipulated therein.
ISSUE: WON Glaxo’s policy against its employees marrying employees from
competitor companies is valid
HELD: The Court finds no merit in the petition.
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing
strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors,
especially so that it and Astra are rival companies in the highly competitive
pharmaceutical industry.
The prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of
competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the circumstances
because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company.
In laying down the assailed company policy, Glaxo only aims to protect its interests
against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and
procedures.
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.21
EQUAL-PROTECTION: Glaxo does not impose an absolute prohibition against
relationships between its employees and those of competitor companies. Its
employees are free to cultivate relationships with and marry persons of their own
choosing. What the company merely seeks to avoid is a conflict of interest between
the employee and the company that may arise out of such relationships.
Moreover, records show that Glaxo gave Tecson several chances to eliminate the
conflict of interest brought about by his relationship with Bettsy.
PETITION DENIED.