A Philippine legal article on rights, employer limits, standards, procedures, and remedies

1) Why this topic matters legally

In Philippine labor law, termination is never valid simply because an employee is pregnant or experiences pregnancy-related conditions, nor because the employee is absent due to legitimate sickness—especially when absences are supported by medical documentation and are within lawful or company-granted leave rules.

Illegal dismissal in these situations often appears as:

direct termination “because you’re pregnant,”
discipline or termination tied to prenatal complications or medically advised rest,
forced resignation or pressure to quit,
using “attendance,” “performance,” “end of contract,” or “redundancy” as a cover for pregnancy bias,
treating medically supported absences as “AWOL,” “abandonment,” or “gross neglect” without legal basis.

The legal analysis generally falls into two overlapping buckets:

Pregnancy-based discrimination and prohibited dismissal, and/or
Dismissal based on absences due to illness (including pregnancy-related illness), assessed under rules on just causes, authorized causes, and due process.

2) Core legal framework (Philippine context)

A. Constitutional and policy anchors

Philippine labor policy protects workers and promotes social justice, including special protection for women and working mothers. This constitutional background shapes how labor statutes and disputes are interpreted—generally in favor of labor when doubt exists in interpretation of labor standards and employer actions.

B. Labor Code: prohibited acts against women and security of tenure

Philippine law specifically prohibits discrimination against women in employment, including termination on account of pregnancy and rules that effectively penalize pregnancy. Historically, the Labor Code includes provisions that prohibit dismissal of a woman employee by reason of pregnancy or while on maternity leave, and prohibits discrimination in terms and conditions of employment.

Key point: Even if an employer labels the reason as “attendance” or “policy violation,” if pregnancy is the real reason—or if the rule is applied in a way that targets pregnancy—the termination can be struck down.

C. Expanded Maternity Leave Law (Republic Act No. 11210)

This law expanded maternity leave benefits and reinforced protections around maternity leave usage. While the statute is benefits-focused, its practical labor-relations effect is to make it much harder to justify adverse action tied to pregnancy, childbirth, and related recovery periods, because lawful maternity leave is a recognized entitlement and policy priority.

D. Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act No. 9710)

This law strengthens the state policy against discrimination on the basis of sex and protects women’s rights, including in employment. Pregnancy discrimination commonly implicates the broader anti-discrimination mandate of this statute and its implementing framework.

E. Sickness and dismissal rules: “Disease” as an authorized cause (Labor Code)

Separate from pregnancy discrimination, Philippine law recognizes a limited employer right to terminate based on disease/illness, but only under strict conditions (discussed in Section 6). Employers frequently misuse this area by equating “sick absences” with terminable misconduct—those are not the same.

3) Defining illegal dismissal in the Philippines

Illegal dismissal occurs when:

the employer terminates without a lawful ground (no valid just cause or authorized cause), or
the employer fails to comply with substantive and procedural due process requirements, or
the dismissal is motivated by prohibited discrimination (including pregnancy), or
the employer forces the employee out through constructive dismissal.

Philippine termination law has two main categories of valid grounds:

Just causes (employee fault/misconduct), and
Authorized causes (business or health-related grounds not based on fault).

Even when a ground exists, employers must still follow required procedures.

4) Pregnancy-related dismissal: what is prohibited

A. Direct pregnancy dismissal (clearest case)

Termination is illegal when the employer dismisses an employee because she is pregnant, is suspected to be pregnant, plans to become pregnant, or is dealing with pregnancy-related medical needs (prenatal checkups, bed rest, complications, postpartum recovery).

Common unlawful statements/actions:

“You can’t do the job pregnant.”
“We can’t carry your absences.”
“Resign first and reapply after giving birth.”
“You’re not regularized because you got pregnant.”
“We will end your contract because you’re pregnant.”

B. Indirect discrimination / disguised grounds

Many disputes are fought on “pretext.” Typical disguises:

Attendance policy suddenly enforced only after pregnancy disclosure
Performance issues raised only after pregnancy announcement
End of contract timed to pregnancy or maternity leave (especially if repeated renewals show necessity and control)
“Redundancy” affecting only the pregnant worker
“AWOL/abandonment” tagged during medically supported absence

Labor tribunals examine timing, consistency of enforcement, comparators (how others are treated), documentation, and whether the employer’s explanation holds up.

C. Non-regular, probationary, project, fixed-term, and contractual arrangements

Pregnancy protection is not confined to regular employees. However, the legal analysis differs:

Probationary employees: They can be terminated for failure to meet reasonable standards made known at hiring. Pregnancy is not a valid standard for failure. Termination “because pregnant” remains illegal.
Fixed-term/project employment: If the contract legitimately ends by its own terms or project completion, non-renewal can be lawful—but not if pregnancy is the true reason or if the arrangement is used to evade security of tenure.
Independent contractors vs employees: If the relationship is actually employment (control test, economic reality indicators), labor protections apply.

5) Sickness-related absences: when termination is illegal vs potentially legal

A. Being sick is not misconduct

Illness and medically necessary absences are generally not “willful disobedience,” “gross neglect,” or “serious misconduct.” They are health conditions. Termination framed as a fault-based just cause must show wrongful intent or culpability, not mere incapacity.

B. Frequent absences: the employer’s common argument

Employers often argue “habitual absenteeism” or “excessive absences” as a just cause. Whether it holds depends on:

Are absences authorized (approved leave, medical certificates, statutory leave)?
Were policies reasonable, clearly communicated, and fairly applied?
Did the employer follow progressive discipline where appropriate?
Is there evidence the employee intentionally refused to work?
Is the employee protected by a statutory leave (maternity, SSS sickness benefit-supported periods, etc.)?

Where absences are pregnancy-related or medically supported, tribunals often treat termination skeptically, especially if the employer ignored medical documentation or refused reasonable accommodation.

C. Pregnancy-related sickness is both “pregnancy” and “sickness”

Complications (bleeding, hypertension, hyperemesis, preterm labor risk, postpartum complications, depression/mental health conditions) are medical realities that can require absences. When an employer penalizes these absences, the case often becomes pregnancy discrimination plus illegal dismissal for lack of a lawful ground.

6) The “disease” authorized cause: strict conditions and common employer mistakes

Philippine law allows termination because of disease only under narrow conditions. In substance, termination for illness is valid only when:

the employee has a disease, and
continued employment is prohibited by law or prejudicial to the employee’s health or to co-employees, and
a competent public health authority issues a certification that the disease is of such nature or at such stage that it cannot be cured within six (6) months even with proper medical treatment (or words to that effect, depending on medical assessment and legal framing), and
due process is observed, and
the employer pays the legally required separation pay for authorized-cause termination (commonly at least one month pay or one-half month pay per year of service, whichever is higher, subject to the applicable legal basis and current interpretations).

Common fatal errors by employers:

relying only on a company doctor’s opinion without the required public health authority certification,
using “disease” rules for temporary conditions expected to resolve within months,
using the disease ground when the real issue is pregnancy or lawful leave usage,
skipping due process,
failing to pay separation pay.

Important: Pregnancy itself is not a “disease.” Pregnancy-related complications may be illnesses, but using disease termination against pregnant employees is highly scrutinized, and if it is effectively penalizing pregnancy, it risks being illegal and discriminatory.

7) Due process in termination: what employers must do

Even with a potentially valid ground, employers must follow procedural due process.

A. For just causes (disciplinary termination)

The standard is commonly described as the two-notice rule plus an opportunity to be heard:

First notice: written charge/notice describing the acts/omissions and giving a reasonable chance to explain.
Opportunity to be heard: written explanation and/or hearing/conference when warranted.
Second notice: written notice of decision stating reasons after considering the employee’s side.

If an employer fires someone for “AWOL” during medically supported absence without meaningful notice and investigation, that is usually procedurally defective—and often substantively weak.

B. For authorized causes (business reasons or disease)

There are typically notice requirements to:

the employee, and
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), within required periods, depending on the authorized cause invoked. Disease-related termination is also expected to observe fairness and documentation, and separation pay obligations.

8) Constructive dismissal: forced resignation and “voluntary” exits

Employers sometimes avoid a termination paper trail by forcing a resignation:

threatening termination,
making working conditions intolerable,
stripping duties, humiliating, isolating, or transferring punitively,
pressuring the pregnant employee to “take a break,” “sign a quitclaim,” or “resign for the baby.”

If resignation is not truly voluntary, tribunals may treat it as constructive dismissal, entitling the employee to illegal dismissal remedies.

9) Evidence and burden of proof (practical litigation realities)

A. Who must prove what

In termination disputes, employers are generally required to prove that dismissal was for a valid cause and done with due process. Employees must show they were dismissed (or constructively dismissed) and present facts supporting illegality or discrimination when that is the theory.

B. What evidence tends to matter most

For employees:

employment contract, job offer, handbook/policies, and acknowledgment receipts
medical certificates, ultrasound/OB advice, lab results, hospital records
leave applications, approvals, denials, HR emails/chats
notices, memos, NTEs, and the termination letter
payslips, SSS records (when relevant), timekeeping logs
witness statements (co-workers), screenshots (handled carefully), audit trails
timeline showing pregnancy disclosure → sudden discipline → termination

For employers (often scrutinized):

consistent enforcement of policies across employees
documented performance management predating pregnancy
properly issued notices and proof of service
independent business justification for authorized causes
legally required certifications (for disease termination)

10) Remedies if dismissal is illegal

When illegal dismissal is found, common remedies include:

Reinstatement (to the same position or equivalent) without loss of seniority rights, and
Full backwages from dismissal until actual reinstatement.

If reinstatement is not feasible (strained relations, position abolition, practical impossibility), separation pay may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement, depending on the circumstances and the adjudicator’s findings.

Additional monetary relief may include:

unpaid wages/benefits, 13th month, leave conversions if applicable, differentials
moral and exemplary damages (more likely when bad faith, discrimination, humiliation, or oppressive conduct is proven)
attorney’s fees in proper cases

Quitclaims/waivers: A quitclaim does not automatically bar claims if it was signed under pressure, for unconscionably low consideration, or without informed consent.

11) Where and how disputes are usually filed (process overview)

A. SENA (Single Entry Approach) / conciliation-mediation

Many employment disputes go through an initial mandatory conciliation-mediation process under DOLE’s SENA framework, intended to encourage settlement before full litigation.

B. NLRC / Labor Arbiter route

Illegal dismissal claims are typically filed before the Labor Arbiter (NLRC structure). Cases proceed through position papers, hearings/conferences when needed, decision, then appeals (NLRC Commission), and potentially further judicial review.

C. Prescription / time limits (high-level)

Illegal dismissal claims are commonly treated as prescribing in four (4) years from accrual under general civil law principles applied in labor contexts.
Money claims have their own prescriptive rules (commonly three (3) years for certain labor money claims).

Because multiple claims can coexist (illegal dismissal + money claims), timing should be evaluated carefully in real cases.

12) Typical scenarios and how Philippine labor law tends to analyze them

Scenario 1: “Terminated due to absences from prenatal checkups/bed rest”

Often illegal if absences are medically supported and/or within leave entitlements, especially if attendance rules are weaponized after pregnancy disclosure.

Scenario 2: “Tagged as AWOL while hospitalized for pregnancy complication”

Usually weak for the employer if the employee gave notice (or had a reasonable inability to do so) and later provided proof. AWOL is not automatically abandonment.

Scenario 3: “End of contract” right after pregnancy disclosure

May be legal if it truly ends by term and is not a pretext—but suspicious timing and patterns of renewal/control can support an illegal dismissal or misclassification finding.

Scenario 4: “We’re terminating you due to illness (authorized cause)”

Valid only if strict disease-termination requirements are met (including proper certification and separation pay), and not used as a mask for discrimination.

Scenario 5: “Forced resignation: ‘Sign this or we terminate you’”

Commonly litigated as constructive dismissal; threats and coercion undermine voluntariness.

13) Employer compliance and best-practice guardrails (what lawful management looks like)

To avoid illegal dismissal findings, lawful employers typically:

respect maternity and sickness-related leave rules and treat medical documentation seriously
apply attendance and performance policies consistently across employees
separate “health limitations” from “misconduct” analysis
use progressive discipline only where culpable behavior exists
avoid statements or actions that link pregnancy to job insecurity
follow due process meticulously and keep clean records
seek proper certification and pay correct separation pay if disease termination is legitimately applicable

14) Key takeaways

Pregnancy is a protected status in employment; dismissal because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical needs is generally illegal and may also be discriminatory.
Sickness-related absences—especially when medically supported—are not automatically a just cause for termination.
Disease termination is an authorized cause with strict prerequisites; it is frequently misused and often struck down when requirements are unmet.
Employers must satisfy both substantive validity (lawful ground) and procedural due process (proper notices and opportunity to be heard).
Successful illegal dismissal claims commonly result in reinstatement and backwages, with possible additional damages in bad-faith or discriminatory cases.