Duncan vs.

Glaxo

FACTS: RULING:

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 with
employees with 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 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 love prevailed and 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...
Appealed to CA which affirmed that NCMB did not err in its decision.
On Equal Protection
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies, and
other confidential programs and information from competitors.
The prohibition against 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.
It cannot be found in the employee handbook that there is absolute prohibition of marriage.
What the company seeks to avoid is conflict of interest and that it has a right to protect its
economic interests.
It is the settled principle that the commands of the equal protection clause are addressed
only to the state or those acting under color of its authority. Equal protection clause erects no
shield against merely privately conduct, however, discriminatory or wrongful.
The company actually enforced the policy after repeated requests to the employee to comply
with the policy. Indeed the application of the policy was made in an impartial and even-
handed manner, with due regard for the welfare of the employee.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees

from marrying employees of any competitor company is valid

Petitioner: Violation of equal protection rights because it discriminates employees based on

marital status. Restricts employees’ right to marry.

Glaxo: Company policy is a valid exercise of its management prerogative. Since Glaxo is
engaged in selling pharmaceutical products, knowledge of products not spilling to
competition is important. Marriage of employee with an employee of a competitor
compromises their products and is conflict of interest.

Glaxo products were in direct competition with 67% of the products of Astra.
Glaxo gave Tecson plenty of time to remedy.
Glaxo made aware from the start by letting him know and sign the contract.
Glaxo made sure to transfer Tecson in a favorable area and prejudice the comfort of his
family.

F. Degamo (2019)