Protecting Women’s Rights: Why Anti-Marriage Policies are Illegal

G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997

Imagine losing your job simply because you got married. This was the reality for Grace de Guzman, an employee of Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company (PT&T). PT&T had a policy against employing married women, leading to Grace’s dismissal when they discovered she had tied the knot. This case highlights the critical importance of protecting women’s rights in the workplace and understanding the illegality of discriminatory anti-marriage policies.

The Legal Landscape: Protecting Women from Workplace Discrimination

Philippine law strongly protects women from discrimination in the workplace, particularly concerning marriage. Article 136 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits employers from requiring, as a condition of employment, that a woman remain unmarried or be terminated upon getting married. This provision is a cornerstone of gender equality in employment, ensuring that women are not penalized for exercising their right to marry.

Article 136 of the Labor Code states:

“It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman 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 marriage.”

This protection is further reinforced by the Constitution, which recognizes the role of women in nation-building and mandates the State to ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before the law. Several laws, such as Republic Act No. 6727 (explicitly prohibits discrimination against women), Republic Act No. 7192 (Women in Development and Nation Building Act), and Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995), also contribute to safeguarding women’s rights in the workplace.

The PT&T Case: A Story of Discrimination and Legal Triumph

Grace de Guzman’s journey with PT&T began as a reliever, then as a probationary employee. She initially indicated she was single on her job application, having married a few months prior. When PT&T discovered she was married, they dismissed her, citing their policy against employing married women and her alleged dishonesty in concealing her marital status. Grace fought back, filing a complaint for illegal dismissal.

The case unfolded through several stages:

• Labor Arbiter: Ruled in favor of Grace, declaring her dismissal illegal and ordering reinstatement with back wages and COLA.
• National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC): Affirmed the labor arbiter’s decision but imposed a three-month suspension on Grace due to her initial dishonesty.
• Supreme Court: Upheld the NLRC’s decision, emphasizing that PT&T’s policy was discriminatory and violated Article 136 of the Labor Code.

The Supreme Court highlighted the discriminatory nature of PT&T’s policy, stating:

“Contrary to petitioner’s assertion that it dismissed private respondent from employment on account of her dishonesty, the record discloses clearly that her ties with the company were dissolved principally because of the company’s policy that married women are not qualified for employment in PT&T, and not merely because of her supposed acts of dishonesty.”

The Court further emphasized that Grace’s concealment of her marital status was a direct consequence of PT&T’s illegal policy, stating, “Indeed, petitioner glosses over the fact that it was its unlawful policy against married women, both on the aspects of qualification and retention, which compelled private respondent to conceal her supervenient marriage. It was, however, that very policy alone which was the cause of private respondent’s secretive conduct now complained of.”

Practical Implications: What This Means for Employers and Employees

This case serves as a stern warning to employers: anti-marriage policies are illegal and discriminatory. Employers cannot discriminate against women based on their marital status. This ruling reinforces the importance of fair employment practices and adherence to labor laws.

Key Lessons:

• Employers must eliminate discriminatory policies based on marital status.
• Employees have the right to marry without fear of losing their jobs.
• Dishonesty, even if prompted by an illegal policy, can still result in disciplinary action.

Hypothetical Example: Imagine a company that requires female employees to sign an agreement stating they will resign if they get married. This agreement is illegal and unenforceable under Philippine law. Any employee terminated based on this agreement has grounds for an illegal dismissal case.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Can a company refuse to hire a woman because she is married?

A: No. Article 136 of the Labor Code explicitly prohibits discrimination based on marital status.

Q: Can a company policy require female employees to remain single?

A: No. Such a policy is illegal and unenforceable.

Q: What should an employee do if they are dismissed for getting married?

A: They should file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

Q: Can an employee be disciplined for dishonesty related to concealing their marital status?

A: Yes, but the punishment must be proportionate to the offense. The NLRC in this case imposed a three-month suspension.

Q: Does this law apply to all types of jobs?

A: Yes, Article 136 of the Labor Code applies to all occupations.

Q: What are the potential penalties for employers who violate Article 136?

A: Penalties can include fines, imprisonment, and orders for reinstatement and back wages.

ASG Law specializes in labor law and employment disputes. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.