Article 134 [136] of the Labor Code: Stipulation against marriage
The number in brackets, [136], is the article's number before the 2015 renumbering of the Labor Code.
Status: In force
What does Article 134 [136] say?
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.
Read the Labor Code on the DOLE website (it uses the article numbers before 2015)
What does it mean in plain language?
Article 134 [136] of the Labor Code protects women workers who marry. An employer may not make staying single a condition of the job, may not treat a woman as resigned when she marries, and may not dismiss or penalize her merely because she married. For company rules on marrying a co-worker, the Supreme Court asks the employer to prove a reasonable business necessity.
The article was Article 136 before the 2015 renumbering of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court used the new number, with the old one in brackets, in Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank (2022).
How does it work in real life?
Grace: "deemed resigned" in the contract
Grace's employment contract says that a female staff member who marries is deemed to have resigned. Article 134 makes such a stipulation unlawful, whether written in the contract or applied as an unwritten practice.
Mae and Arnold: a no-spouse rule
Mae and Arnold work at the same company and marry. Under a company rule, one of them must leave, and Mae is dismissed. Under Star Paper and Dela Cruz-Cagampan, the company must prove a reasonable business necessity for the rule. A blanket rule without that proof is discriminatory, and a dismissal under it may be illegal.
Ian: a rival company's employee
Ian works in sales for a drug company and marries a manager of a competitor. His contract, which he signed knowing the rule, bars relationships with employees of competitors, and the company moves him to another sales area. Facts like these are close to Duncan, where the Court upheld the policy as reasonable.
What does this mean in practice?
- If a dismissal is found illegal, the remedies are reinstatement and full backwages under [Article 294 [279]](/law/labor-code/article-294). See illegal dismissal remedies.
- Being forced to resign, or moved to a worse post, because of marriage may be constructive dismissal.
- For pregnancy-related protection, see [Article 135 [137]](/law/labor-code/article-135) and maternity leave rights.
- For the question in plain language, see can an employer prohibit marriage.
- These cases turn on the policy's wording and the employer's reasons. A lawyer, a union or the Public Attorney's Office can help. See Free legal help in the Philippines.
What does Article 134 [136] say?
The full text:
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.
It covers three kinds of acts:
- A condition. Requiring, to be hired or to stay, that a woman will not get married.
- A stipulation. A contract term or company rule, written or implied, that a woman who marries is deemed resigned or separated.
- An act. Dismissing, discharging, discriminating against or otherwise prejudicing a woman "merely by reason of her marriage."
The word "merely" matters. The article forbids treating marriage itself as the reason. An employee who marries can still be disciplined for a just cause unrelated to the marriage.
What about rules against marrying a co-worker?
Many companies have "no-spouse" rules. The Supreme Court has judged them by a standard of reasonableness:
- In Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol (2006), the Court said "The employer has the burden to prove the existence of a reasonable business necessity." It applied "the standard of reasonableness of the company policy which is parallel to the bona fide occupational qualification requirement," and affirmed the ruling that the dismissals under the company's policy were illegal.
- In Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank (2022), the Court said "An employer's blanket policy of no-spouse employment is discriminatory," and that dismissing an employee under an arbitrary no-spouse rule is illegal dismissal. The bank had dismissed the wife and kept the husband.
And rules about employees of a competitor?
In Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines (2004), a Resolution, the Court upheld a pharmaceutical company's policy against relationships with employees of a competitor. It said the company "has a right to guard its trade secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other confidential programs and information from competitors." The Court agreed that the policy "is not a policy against marriage," since the employee "remains free to marry anyone of his or her choosing." The employee, whose wife worked as a supervisor at a rival company, had known of the policy when he signed his contract, and his transfer to another sales area was not constructive dismissal. The Resolution was decided on management prerogative and the employment contract; it did not apply Article 136.
Which Supreme Court rulings are relevant?
- Star Paper v. Simbol (G.R. No. 164774)Star Paper v. Simbol explained: why a rule forcing one of two married co-workers to resign was struck down, and the reasonable business necessity test.
- Duncan v. Glaxo (G.R. No. 162994)Duncan v. Glaxo explained: why a drug company could bar staff from relationships with rival employees, and why a transfer was not constructive dismissal.
Frequently asked questions
What does Article 134 [136] of the Labor Code prohibit?
It makes it unlawful for an employer to require that a woman employee not get married as a condition of employment, to stipulate that she is deemed resigned or separated upon marrying, or to dismiss, discriminate against or otherwise prejudice her merely by reason of her marriage.
Why is it called Article 134 [136]?
The 2015 renumbering of the Labor Code moved old Article 136 to Article 134. Older decisions and many websites still call it Article 136. The text is the same.
Can a company ban marriage to a co-worker?
Only if the employer proves a reasonable business necessity. In Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol (2006), the Supreme Court applied a standard of reasonableness and affirmed that the dismissals were illegal. In Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank (2022), it called a blanket no-spouse policy discriminatory.
Can a company ban relationships with employees of a competitor?
In Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines (2004), the Supreme Court upheld such a policy as a valid exercise of management prerogative, because the company had a right to protect its trade secrets and confidential information from competitors.
Does Article 134 protect men too?
The text speaks of a woman employee. Marriage-based policies affecting any employee have also been judged by the Supreme Court under the standard of reasonable business necessity, as in Star Paper and Dela Cruz-Cagampan.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?