Article 135 [137] of the Labor Code: Prohibited acts against women employees
The number in brackets, [137], is the article's number before the 2015 renumbering of the Labor Code.
Status: In force
What does Article 135 [137] say?
It shall be unlawful for any employer:
(1) To deny any woman employee the benefits provided for in this Chapter or to discharge any woman employed by him for the purpose of preventing her from enjoying any of the benefits provided under this Code;
(2) To discharge such woman on account of her pregnancy, or while on leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy;
(3) To discharge or refuse the admission of such woman upon returning to her work for fear that she may again be pregnant.
Read the Labor Code on the DOLE website (it uses the article numbers before 2015)
What does it mean in plain language?
Article 135 [137] of the Labor Code protects women workers during and after pregnancy. An employer may not dismiss a woman because she is pregnant, or while she is on leave or confined because of her pregnancy, or refuse to take her back after it for fear she will get pregnant again. It also forbids denying women their benefits under the chapter on employment of women, or dismissing a woman to keep her from enjoying benefits under the Code.
The article was Article 137 before the 2015 renumbering of the Labor Code.
How does it work in real life?
Lorna: fired after announcing her pregnancy
Lorna tells her manager she is pregnant. Two weeks later she is let go, with a note about "restructuring" but no change for anyone else. If the real reason is her pregnancy, Article 135(2) makes the dismissal unlawful. The timing and the lack of any other basis are the kind of facts a labor tribunal looks at.
Ana: no post after the leave
Ana returns from maternity leave and is told there is no more place for her because "the company cannot afford another leave." Article 135(3) forbids refusing to take her back for fear she may get pregnant again.
Jessa: pregnant before marriage
Jessa, a single office worker at a private school, becomes pregnant and later marries the father. The school dismisses her for immoral conduct. Under the Leus ruling, the question is whether her conduct is disgraceful or immoral under public and secular morality, judged on the totality of the facts. In Leus, the Court found it was not.
What does this mean in practice?
- A dismissed worker may claim reinstatement and full backwages under [Article 294 [279]](/law/labor-code/article-294). See illegal dismissal remedies.
- Under [Article 292 [277]](/law/labor-code/article-292)(b), the burden of proving that a termination was for a valid or authorized cause rests on the employer. See [Article 297 [282]](/law/labor-code/article-297) for the just causes.
- The pregnancy notice, medical certificates, leave forms and any message about the dismissal are the kind of records such cases rest on.
- For marriage-related bans, see [Article 134 [136]](/law/labor-code/article-134).
- A lawyer, a union or the Public Attorney's Office can review a specific case. See Free legal help in the Philippines.
What does Article 135 [137] say?
The full text:
It shall be unlawful for any employer:
(1) To deny any woman employee the benefits provided for in this Chapter or to discharge any woman employed by him for the purpose of preventing her from enjoying any of the benefits provided under this Code;
(2) To discharge such woman on account of her pregnancy, or while on leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy;
(3) To discharge or refuse the admission of such woman upon returning to her work for fear that she may again be pregnant.
What do the three prohibited acts mean?
| Item | The employer may not | Made-up illustration |
|---|---|---|
| (1) | Deny women their benefits under the chapter, or dismiss a woman to keep her from benefits under the Code | Firing a worker just before her leave starts so she cannot use it |
| (2) | Dismiss her because she is pregnant, or while she is on leave or confined due to the pregnancy | A termination notice served during maternity leave |
| (3) | Dismiss her, or refuse to take her back, on her return, for fear she may get pregnant again | Telling a mother returning from leave that her post is gone "in case it happens again" |
Item (2) protects her during the leave and the confinement itself, not only against the reason "pregnancy."
What did the Supreme Court say about pregnancy outside marriage?
In Leus v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove (2015), a non-teaching employee of a Catholic school became pregnant before marriage. She later married the father, before she was dismissed. The two "had no legal impediment to marry." The school dismissed her for serious misconduct, saying that pre-marital relations were immoral conduct. The labor tribunals and the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal as "disgraceful or immoral conduct," a ground under Section 94(e) of the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.
The Court did not decide the case under Article 137 (now 135). It applied the school regulations and the just causes for dismissal, and set a two-step test for disgraceful or immoral conduct: first, the totality of the circumstances; second, an assessment of those circumstances against "the prevailing norms of conduct, i.e., what the society generally considers moral and respectable." It said the standard is "public and secular morality," assessed "from a strictly neutral and secular point of view." It held that her conduct "cannot be considered as disgraceful or immoral," found the dismissal illegal, and awarded separation pay in place of reinstatement plus full backwages.
The ruling matters for Article 135 because it shows how the Court looks at a dismissal connected with pregnancy, even when the employer gives another label to the ground.
What about the maternity leave law?
The 105-Day Expanded Maternity Leave Law (Republic Act No. 11210) has its own protection against demotion and termination for using maternity leave benefits. It is explained in maternity leave rights. For the SSS cash benefit, see the SSS maternity benefit guide.
Which Supreme Court rulings are relevant?
Frequently asked questions
What does Article 135 [137] of the Labor Code prohibit?
It makes it unlawful for an employer to deny a woman employee her benefits or dismiss her to keep her from enjoying them, to dismiss her on account of her pregnancy or while on leave or in confinement due to pregnancy, or to dismiss or refuse to readmit her on her return for fear she may again be pregnant.
Why is it called Article 135 [137]?
The 2015 renumbering of the Labor Code moved old Article 137 to Article 135. Older decisions and many websites still use Article 137.
Can a worker be dismissed for getting pregnant outside marriage?
In Leus v. St. Scholastica's College Westgrove (2015), the Supreme Court held that pregnancy outside marriage between two persons with no legal impediment to marry was not disgraceful or immoral conduct under public and secular morality, and that the dismissal was illegal. That case was decided under school regulations and the just causes, not under Article 135 itself.
Does Article 135 stop all dismissals of pregnant employees?
No. It forbids dismissal on account of pregnancy, or while she is on leave or in confinement because of it. A dismissal for a just or authorized cause that has nothing to do with the pregnancy is judged under the usual rules on dismissal.
General information, not legal advice. For your case, ask a lawyer, the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or the agency.
Was this page helpful?