The Philippine Constitution considers marriage as an inviolable social institution impressed with public interest. Therefore, the State is mandated to preserve and protect it against any and all forms of discrimination.  

The Family Code of the Philippines specifically provides rules on marriage.  Our labor laws also seek to protect marriage. Article 136 of the Labor Code expressly prohibits employers: a) to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not get married; b) 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 c) to prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of her marriage.  While the law merely mentions women,  the same rule also applies to men since our fundamental law guarantees equal protection for both sexes.  These laws clearly point out that marriage is something that is available to everyone who wishes to enter into it.  Hence, it cannot be used as a requirement for employment, a tool for oppression. 

The Supreme Court of the Philippines had the occasion to elucidate further on the application of this rule in the case Gualberto, et. al. vs. Marinduque Mining & Industrial Corporation ( C.A. G.R. No. 52753-R, June 28, 1978).  In dismissing the complainant from service, respondent invoked a company policy that any female employee who gets married shall be considered separated from employment. The company policy was due to lack of facilities for married women. Respondent further claimed that complainant was hired for a specific project with an oral understanding that her services would be terminated when she gets married.  Branding the policy of the employer as an example of “discriminatory chauvinism” tantamount to denying equal employment opportunities to women on account of their sex, the Court struck down said employer policy as unlawful in view of its repugnance to the law.  

A year earlier, then President Marcos made an administrative ruling on the same issue.  In this case, a policy of the Philippine Airlines requiring prospective flight attendants to be single and deeming them automatically separated from the service once they marry was declared void and violative of the clear mandate in Article 136 of the Labor Code. (Zialcita vs. Philippine Airlines, February 20, 1977 decided by the Office of the President) 

In 1997, a case about a company policy of not accepting or of considering as disqualified from work any woman worker who contracts marriage was held to run afoul of the test of, and the right against discrimination. Further, the Court said that the employee’s act of concealing the true nature of her status from the company could not be properly characterized as willful or in bad faith as she was moved to act the way she did mainly because she wanted to retain a permanent job in a stable company.  In other words, she was practically forced by that very same illegal company policy into misrepresenting her civil status for fear of being disqualified from work. (PT&T vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997) 

Interestingly in 2004, the Supreme Court in the Glaxo Wellcome case affirmed a company policy which prohibits marriage of its employees with the employees of any of its competitor companies,  as a legitimate management prerogative.  The Court held that the prohibition is reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that nature might compromise the interests of the company.  In laying down the assailed policy, the company only aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a competitor company will gain access to its secrets and procedures. (Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO Tecson vs. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162994, September 17, 2004) 

Last April 2006, the Court settled another case on the same issue.  The case involved a “no spouse-employment policy” which provided that should an employee decide to get married with another employee of the same company, one of them should resign.  In striking down such employment policy as untenable, the Court held that the employer failed to prove that there was a legitimate business necessity other than the general perception that spouses in the same workplace “might” adversely affect the business and that there is no better or acceptable policy which would better accomplish the business purpose.  It  further held that this proof of legitimate business concern that would justify the policy is called a “bona fide occupational qualification exception.”  (Star Paper Corporation vs. Simbol; G.R. No. 164774; April 12, 2006)

In sum, the rule on the prohibition of stipulation against marriage under Article 136 admits of some exceptions. They are limited by legitimate management prerogatives.  However, employers are first duty bound to prove that there is a business necessity for it, as held in the Glaxo case.  If no legitimate business concern is proven, the doctrine laid down in the Star Paper Corp. case shall govern.