Photo from Unsplash | Sandy Millar
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of your own lawyer to address your legal concerns, if any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE
- It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married.
- It shall also be unlawful to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated.
- Ultimately, it shall be unlawful to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage.
The Labor Code considers unlawful the act of an employer to discriminate against any woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her gender.
The law says:
Discrimination prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any employer to discriminate against any woman employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of her sex.
The following are acts of discrimination:
- Payment of a lesser compensation, including wage, salary or other form of remuneration and fringe benefits, to a female employee as against a male employee, for work of equal value; and
- Favoring a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotion, training opportunities, study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes.
Criminal liability for the willful commission of any unlawful act as provided in this Article or any violation of the rules and regulations issued pursuant to Section 2 hereof shall be penalized as provided in Articles 288 and 289 of this Code: Provided, That the institution of any criminal action under this provision shall not bar the aggrieved employee from filing an entirely separate and distinct action for money claims, which may include claims for damages and other affirmative reliefs. The actions hereby authorized shall proceed independently of each other. (Art. 135, Labor Code of the Philippines)
Stipulation against marriage. It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married, or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage. (Art. 136, Labor Code of the Philippines)
Discrimination against women
The Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act No. 9710), a comprehensive women’s human rights law, seeks to eliminate discrimination against women by recognizing, protecting, and promoting the rights of Filipino women, especially those in the marginalized sectors.
What are discriminatory acts under the term “discrimination against women” under the Magna Carta for Women?
The law says:
“Discrimination Against Women” refers to any gender-based distinction, exclusion, or restriction which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil, or any other field.
It includes any act or omission, including by law; policy, administrative measure, or practice, that directly or indirectly excludes or restricts women in the recognition and promotion of their rights and their access to and enjoyment of opportunities, benefits, or privileges.
A measure or practice of general application is discrimination against women if it fails to provide for mechanisms to offset or address sex or gender-based disadvantages or limitations of women, as a result of which women are denied or restricted in the recognition and protection of their rights and in their access to and enjoyment of opportunities, benefits, or privileges; or women, more than men, are shown to have suffered the greater adverse effects of those measures or practices.
Provided, finally, That discrimination compounded by or intersecting with other grounds, status, or condition, such as ethnicity, age, poverty, or religion shall be considered discrimination against women under this Act. (Section 4, Magna Carta for Women)
Right to decent work standards for women
The law says:
“The State shall progressively realize and ensure decent work standards for women that involve the creation of jobs of acceptable quality in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity.” (Section 25, Rule V, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9710)
Stipulations against marriage
Article 136 of the Labor Code of the Philippines deems it unlawful for an employer to require as a condition for or continuation of employment that a female employee shall not get married or to expressly stipulate that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated.
RELATED ARTICLE: Married woman on the use of surname of her husband
The law says:
“Prohibited acts. — It shall be unlawful for any employer:
(a) To discharge any woman employed by him for the purpose of preventing such woman from enjoying the maternity leave, facilities and other benefits provided under the Code;
(b) To discharge such woman employee on account of her pregnancy, or while on leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy;
(c) To discharge or refuse the admission of such woman upon returning to her work for fear that she may be pregnant;
(d) To discharge any woman or child or any other employee for having filed a complaint or having testified or being about to testify under the Code; and
(e) To require as a condition for a continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married, a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated, or to actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage.” (Section 13, Rule XII, Book III, Omnibus Rules to Implement the Labor Code)
Jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Court ruled that a policy or stipulation against marriage of a female worker violates the mandate of the Labor Code with regard to discrimination against married women. Thus:
Jurisprudence says:
“A policy of Philippine Airlines requiring that prospective flight attendants must be single and that they will be automatically separated from the service once they marry was declared void, it being violative of the clear mandate in Article 136 of the Labor Code with regard to discrimination against married women.” (Zialcita v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., Case No. RO4-3-3398-76, February 20, 1977)
“A company policy of not accepting or considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage runs afoul of the test of, and the right against, discrimination afforded all women workers by our labor laws and by no less than the Constitution.” (Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997)
However, in the case of Duncan v. Glaxo Wellcome (G.R. No. 162994, September 17, 2004), the Supreme Court passed on the validity of the policy of a pharmaceutical company prohibiting its employees from marrying employees of any competitor company. The Court held that the company has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors. The Court considered the prohibition against personal or marital relationships with employees of competitor companies upon the company’s employees reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company. In laying down the assailed company policy, the Court recognized that company only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures.
In the case of Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol (G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006), the Supreme Court struck down the following policy as invalid for violating the standard of reasonableness, or what is called the Reasonable Business Necessity Rule:
- New applicants will not be allowed to be hired if in case he/she has [a] relative, up to [the] 3rd degree of relationship, already employed by the company.
- In case of two of our employees (both singles [sic], one male and another female) developed a friendly relationship during the course of their employment and then decided to get married, one of them should resign to preserve the policy stated above.”
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding taxation and taxpayer’s remedies, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.