Can an Employer Ban Employees From Marrying?

Article 134 [136] of the Labor Code ([136] is its number before the 2015 renumbering) reads:

It forbids four things for women employees:

1. making "do not marry" a condition for getting or keeping the job;
2. a rule, written or unwritten, that a woman who marries is deemed resigned or separated;
3. dismissing or discharging her because she married; and
4. discriminating against her or otherwise putting her at a disadvantage because she married.

In Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank (2022), the Supreme Court cited this article as "Article 134 [136]" and said it prohibits employers from discriminating against women employees.

Many companies have rules against employing spouses or against two employees marrying each other. The Court has dealt with these in two key cases:

• 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". The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling that the dismissals under the company's policy were illegal, with reinstatement and full backwages.
• Dela Cruz-Cagampan v. One Network Bank (2022). A bank had an "Exogamy Policy": when two employees married, one had to go. The wife was dismissed and the husband kept his job. The Court said: "An employer's blanket policy of no-spouse employment is discriminatory. To justify its enforcement, the employer must clearly establish a reasonable business necessity." It added that dismissing an employee under an arbitrary no-spouse rule "is illegal dismissal". It reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision ordering reinstatement and full backwages, with a modification.

In both cases, the Court referred to two requisites taken from foreign rulings for a "bona fide occupational qualification": that the requirement is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job, and that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting it would be unable to properly perform the job. In the Philippines, the Court applies the standard of reasonableness that runs parallel to this test.

The Court has not given a fixed list. What it has said is that:

• the employer carries the burden of proof;
• the necessity must be reasonable and tied to the job; and
• a blanket rule that applies to everyone, without showing why, does not pass.

Whether a specific policy is reasonable depends on the facts of each workplace.

Article 134 speaks of woman employees. The Court's statements on no-spouse policies quoted above are about the employer's policy and the business necessity behind it, not about the sex of the employee. Whether a specific rule protects a particular male employee depends on the facts of the case.

If the dismissal is found illegal, the remedy is the one for illegal dismissal under [Article 294 [279]](/law/labor-code/article-294): reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and full backwages. See Illegally dismissed: what can you get?

Marriage is not one of the just causes for dismissal listed in [Article 297 [282]](/law/labor-code/article-297). See Valid reasons to fire an employee.

For an overview of employment status and security of tenure, see probationary, regular and project employees.

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Carla works at a bank and marries a co-worker. The bank fires her under its rule that married couples cannot both work there, and keeps her husband. As in Dela Cruz-Cagampan, a blanket no-spouse rule is discriminatory unless the bank proves a reasonable business necessity.

Mae signs a contract with a clause that she will be "considered resigned" if she gets married. Article 134 makes such a stipulation unlawful for a woman employee.

Rina, a sales clerk, is moved to a lower post after her wedding, with the manager saying married women are "less available". Article 134 forbids discriminating against or otherwise prejudicing a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage.

Talk to a lawyer if you were dismissed, demoted or pressured to resign after marrying, or if you are an employer writing a policy on relatives or spouses in the workplace. These cases turn on the employer's reasons and evidence. If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines.