A bank implemented what it called an “exogamy” policy. The measure prohibits two employees in the bank to marry each other. It said:

“Effective May 1, 2006, when two employees working for One Network Bank are subsequently married through Church or Civil Court rites, one must terminate employment immediately after marriage.”

Maria and Pedro worked for the said bank. They got married. The bank terminated Maria’s employment.

Maria claims she was illegally dismissed, calling the bank policy generally discriminatory to marriage and more particularly discriminatory to her as a woman. The bank argued it was a bona fide qualification, stating that its business is imbued with public interest. The bank must observe the highest degree of diligence in handling its affairs; as such, the policy is necessary to protect the confidential information of its clients and minimize risks from married co-employees whose communication is privileged. Is the bank correct?

No. A bona fide occupational qualification requires the concurrence of two elements: “(1) that the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and, (2) that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.

First, the no-spouse qualification is not reasonably related to the bank’s essential operation of its business. It unduly discourages all employees from marrying a fellow worker at the pain of termination.

Second, there is no factual basis to conclude that all of their employees who marry each other would be unable to perform their duties, entailing one’s dismissal. The policy was couched in a general manner, that whenever any two of their employees marry, one must terminate employment immediately after marriage. There is a host of employees in a bank that have varying functions, duties, and responsibilities. The general articulation allows respondents to whimsically enforce its policy, as petitioner alleged here that others had been spared. Further, it leaves them the option on which employee’s services to terminate. Here, they arbitrarily dismissed petitioner. The basic tenets of due process cannot allow this.

• Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank, G.R. No. 217414. June 22, 2022.