Duncan Association v. Glaxo welcome, G.R. No. 162994, Sept.

17, 2004

Facts: Petitioner, Pedro Tecson was hired by respondent Glaxo as medical representative, after
Tecson had undergone training and orientation. He signed a contract of employment which
stipulates, among others, that he agrees to study and abide by existing company rules. Another
stipulation which is also found of Glaxo’s Employee Code of Conduct provides the duty 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.

Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxo’s products in the Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte
sales area. He, subsequently entered into a romantic relationship with Bettsy, branch coordinator of
Astra in Albay, a competitor of Glaxo. She supervised the district managers and medical
representatives of her company and prepared marketing strategies for Astra in that area. The two
married even with the several reminders given by the District Manager to Tecson. In January 1999,
Tecson’s superiors informed him that his marriage to Bettsy gave rise to a conflict of interest.
Despite several reminders and time allowances, Tecson was not able to resolve the issue on
conflicting interest. This situation eventually led to his alleged constructive dismissal. This is a
petition for review on certiorari assailing CA’s decision and resolution.

Issue: Is Glaxo’s policy prohibiting its employees from marrying an employee of a competitor
company is valid?

Held:  Yes. No reversible error can be ascribed to the Court of Appeals when it ruled that Glaxo’s
policy prohibiting an employee from having a relationship with an employee of a competitor
company is a valid exercise of management prerogative. 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.
 ART.3 SEC. 1.RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY

G.R. No. 162994

Duncan Association Of Detailman-PTGWO and Pedro A. Tecson, petitioner

vs.  Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., respondent

September 19, 2005

FACTS:
            Petitioner Pedro Tecson was hired on Oct. 25, 1995 by respondent Glaxo Wellcome
Philippines, Inc. as a medical representative. He was assigned to market Glaxo's products in the
Camarines Sur-Camarines Norte sales area. 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.
     On September, 1998 Tecson married Bettsy, an employee of a rival pharmaceutical firm Astra
Pharmaceuticals as the branch coordinator. The relationship, including the subsequent marriage,
dismayed  Glaxo. On January 1999, Tecson's superiors informed him that his marriage to Bettsy had
given rise to a conflict of interest. Negotiations ensued, with Tecson adverting to his wife's possible
resignation from Astra, and Glaxo making it known that they preferred to retain his services owing to his
good performance. Yet no resolution came to pass. In September 1999, Tecson applied for a transfer to
Glaxo's milk division, but his application was denied in view of Glaxo's "least-movement-possible" policy.
Then in November 1999, 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 sought Glaxo’s
reconsideration regarding his transfer and brought the matter to Glaxo’s Grievance Committee. Glaxo,
however, remained firm in its decision and gave Tescon until February 7, 2000 to comply with the transfer
order. Tecson defied the transfer order and continued acting as medical representative in the Camarines
Sur-Camarines Norte sales area.

             On Nov. 15, 2000, the Nat’l. Conciliation and Mediation Board ruled that Glaxo’s policy
was 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.
This decision was assailed by petitioners before the Court of Appeals and the Court, but for
nothing.

ISSUE:
1)Whether or Not Glaxo’s  policy against its employees marrying employees from competitor
companies is valid, and in not holding that said policy violates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution;
(2) Whether Tecson was constructively dismissed.

                                                                                RULING:
                The record shows that Tecson was cognizant about the policy imposed by  Glaxo company, upon
signing the contract, he voluntarily set his hands to follow the said policies. Albeit employees are free to cultivate
relationships w/ 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.  After Tecson
married Bettsy, Glaxo gave him time to resolve the conflict . Glaxo even expressed its desire to
retain Tecson in its employ because of his satisfactory performance and suggested that his wife
would be the one to resign instead.  Glaxo likewise acceded to his repeated requests for more
time to resolve the conflict of interest. When the problem could not be resolved after several
years of waiting, Glaxo was constrained to reassign Tecson to a sales area different from that
handled by his wife for Astra.  Notably, the Court did not terminate Tecson from employment
but only reassigned him to another area where his home province, Agusan del Sur, was
included.  In effecting Tecson’s transfer, Glaxo even considered the welfare of Tecson’s
family.  Clearly, the foregoing dispels any suspicion of unfairness and bad faith on the part of
Glaxo.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Costs against petitioners.

Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO vs. Glaxo Phils.

[G.R. No.162994. September 17, 2004]
Facts:
Pedro A. Tecson was hired by Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.) as medical representative on
October 1995,after Tecson had undergone training and orientation. 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. The Employee Code of Conduct of Glaxo
similarly provides that if management perceives a conflict of interest or a potential conflict between such
relationship and the employee’s employmentwith the company, 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
Pharmaceuticals (Astra), a competitor of Glaxo. Bettsy was Astra’s Branch Coordinator in Albay
Despite of warnings, Tecsonmarried Bettsy. The superiors of Tecson reminded him of the company
policy and suggested that either him orBettsy shall resign from their respective companies. Tecson
requested more time to resolve the issue. InNovember of 1999, Glaxo transferred Tecson to Mindanao
area involving the provinces of Butuan, Surigao andAgusan del Sur. Tecson did not agree to the
reassignment and referred this matter to the grievance committee.It was resolved and was submitted to
voluntary arbitration.
FACTS:

Tecson was hired by Glaxo as a medical representative on Oct. 24, 1995. Contract of
employment signed by Tecson stipulates, among others, that he agrees to study and abide by
the existing company rules; to disclose to management any existing future relationship by
consanguinity or affinity with co-employees or employees with competing drug companies and
should management find that such relationship poses a prossible conflict of interest, to resign
from the company. Company's Code of Employee Conduct provides the same with stipulation
that management may transfer the employee to another department in a non-counterchecking
position or preparation for employment outside of the company after 6 months.

Tecson was initially assigned to market Glaxo's products in the Camarines Sur-Camarines
Norte area and entered into a romantic relationship with Betsy, an employee of Astra, Glaxo's
competition. Before getting married, Tecson's District Manager reminded him several times of
the conflict of interest but marriage took place in Sept. 1998. In Jan. 1999, Tecson's superiors
informed him of conflict of intrest. Tecson asked for time to comply with the condition (that either
he or Betsy resign from their respective positions). Unable to comply with condition, Glaxo
transferred Tecson to the Butuan-Surigao City-Agusan del Sur sales area. After his request
against transfer was denied, Tecson brought the matter to Glaxo's Grievance Committee and
while pending, he continued to act as medical representative in the Camarines Sur-Camarines
Norte sales area. On Nov. 15, 2000, the National Conciliation and Mediation Board ruled that
Glaxo's policy was valid...