Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DUNCAN ASSOCIATION OF DETAILMAN-PTGWO v. GLAXO WELLCOME PHILIPPINES

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 174040-41 2010-09-22	INSULAR HOTEL EMPLOYEES UNION-NFL v. WATERFRONT INSULAR HOTEL DAVAO PERALTA, J.
Withal, while the scales of justice usually tilt in favor of labor, the peculiar circumstances herein prevent this Court from applying the same in the instant petition. Even if our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on social justice and on 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.[76]
	GR No. 168081 2008-10-17	ARMANDO G. YRASUEGUI v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES REYES, R.T., J.
In Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWTO v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.,[70] the Court did not hesitate to pass upon the validity of a company policy which prohibits its employees from marrying employees of a rival company. It was held that the company policy is reasonable considering that its purpose is the protection of the interests of the company against possible competitor infiltration on its trade secrets and procedures.
	GR No. 172835 2007-12-13	AIR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. PENNSWELL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Significantly, our cases on labor are replete with examples of a protectionist stance towards the trade secrets of employers. For instance, this Court upheld the validity of the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying employees of any competitor company, on the rationalization that the company has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors.[42] Notably, it was in a labor-related case that this Court made a stark ruling on the proper determination of trade secrets.
	GR NO. 162053 2007-03-07	ST. LUKE'S EMPLOYEE'S ASSOCIATION v. NLRC AZCUNA, J.
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.[16] Labor laws, to be sure, do not authorize interference with the employer's judgment in the conduct of the latter's business. Private respondent is free to determine, using its own discretion and business judgment, all elements of employment, "from hiring to firing" except in cases of unlawful discrimination or those which may be provided by law. None of these exceptions is present in the instant case.
	GR NO. 169570 2007-03-02	RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
While our laws endeavor to give life to the constitutional policy on social justice and on 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.[43]
	GR NO. 163512 2007-02-28	DAISY B. TIU v. PLATINUM PLANS PHIL. QUISUMBING, J.
Article 1159[14] of the same Code also provides that obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and should be complied with in good faith. Courts cannot stipulate for the parties nor amend their agreement where the same does not contravene law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, for to do so would be to alter the real intent of the parties, and would run contrary to the function of the courts to give force and effect thereto.[15] Not being contrary to public policy, the non-involvement clause, which petitioner and respondent freely agreed upon, has the force of law between them, and thus, should be complied with in good faith.[16]
	GR NO. 164774 2006-04-12	STAR PAPER CORPORATION v. RONALDO D. SIMBOL PUNO, J.
The concept of a bona fide occupational qualification is not foreign in our jurisdiction. We employ the standard of reasonableness of the company policy which is parallel to the bona fide occupational qualification requirement. In the recent case of Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO and Pedro Tecson v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc.,[34] we passed on the validity of the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying employees of any competitor company. We held that Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors. We considered the prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo's employees reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of Glaxo. In laying down the assailed company policy, we recognized that Glaxo only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.[35]