Tess, a seamstress at Marikit Clothing Factory, became pregnant. Because of morning sickness, she frequently absented herself from work and often came to the factory only four (4) days a week. After two (2) months, the personnel manager told her that her habitual absences rendered her practically useless to the company and, thus, asked her to resign. She begged to be retained, citing her pregnancy as reason for her absences. Tess asked for leave of absence but her request was denied. She went on leave nevertheless. As a result, she was thus dismissed for going on leave without permission of management.
Tess filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The company’s defense: she was legally dismissed because of her numerous absences without leave and not because of her pregnancy. On the other hand, Tess argues that her dismissal was an act of discrimination, based as it was on her pregnancy which the company treated as a disease. Whose position is meritorious-the company’s or Tess’? Explain. (5%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
Tess's position is meritorious. Under Article 135(2) of the Labor Code, it is unlawful for an employer to discharge a woman employee on account of her pregnancy, or while on leave or in confinement
Unlock the full Labor Law answers365 days of full access. GCash, Maya and card accepted.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Which of the following acts is explicitly prohibited under Article 135 of the Labor Code concerning female employees?
Article 135(2) of the Labor Code explicitly makes it unlawful to discharge a female employee on account of her pregnancy or pregnancy-related absences.
What is the legal effect of an employer dismissing a pregnant worker for absences directly caused by morning sickness?
Terminating an employee for absences resulting from pregnancy-related conditions constitutes prohibited discrimination and illegal dismissal.
How does Philippine labor law view an employer's attempt to cite unauthorized absences as a defense for firing a pregnant worker who was denied leave?
Using unauthorized absences as a justification for terminating a pregnant worker who was improperly denied leave is a mere pretext for discrimination.
Under Philippine labor jurisprudence, how should employers treat workplace accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions?
Choices available with full access.
Which of the following defenses raised by an employer will NOT justify the termination of a pregnant employee?
Choices available with full access.
Learn more about these topics
1. Pregnancy Discrimination
Under Article 135(2) of the Labor Code, it is unlawful for an employer to discharge a female employee on account of her pregnancy, or while on leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy. Any employment action that penalizes or dismisses a female worker for pregnancy-related absences, illness, or morning sickness constitutes illegal gender discrimination under Philippine labor law. Employers are strictly prohibited from treating pregnancy as a disability, disease, or legitimate ground for termination.
2. Discriminatory Pretext
An employer cannot circumvent statutory protections for pregnant workers by framing a termination as a dismissal for unauthorized absences or insubordination. When an employee's leave request or absences are directly caused by pregnancy-related medical conditions, management's refusal to grant leave and subsequent termination of employment represent a mere pretext for unlawful discrimination. Labor tribunals look beyond the employer's formal justification to determine whether pregnancy was the underlying cause of the dismissal.
3. Protection for Women
The Philippine Constitution and the Labor Code mandate special protection for working women to ensure equal employment opportunities and safeguard maternal health. Dismissing a pregnant employee who requests temporary leave due to morning sickness violates both statutory labor standards and fundamental public policy. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations for maternal health conditions rather than forcing resignation or imposing the harsh penalty of dismissal.