Protection of Pregnant Employees from “Training-Period” Dismissal in the Philippines

A comprehensive doctrinal and practical guide

1. Why the issue matters

Pregnancy often coincides with probationary or trainee status, when a worker has not yet “earned” regular employment. Philippine law, however, treats pregnancy as a protected characteristic—dismissal or non-regularization on that ground is illegal whether the woman is a regular, probationary, apprentice, intern, or job-order worker. Violations expose employers to reinstatement orders, back-wages, moral and exemplary damages, and—in some statutes—criminal liability.

2. Constitutional bedrock

Provision	Key guarantee
Art. II, §14	The State “shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.”
Art. XIII, §3 & §14	Full protection to labor; safe and healthful working conditions “taking into account their maternal functions.”

These provisions animate all subordinate legislation and are frequently invoked by the Supreme Court when pregnancy-related dismissals reach judicial review.

3. Core statutory safeguards

Statute	Salient rule on pregnancy-related dismissal
Labor Code of the Philippines (Pres. Decree 442, as renumbered)
Art. 135 (formerly Art. 137)	Prohibited Acts. It is unlawful to (a) dismiss a woman “by reason of her pregnancy,” (b) do so while she is on maternity leave, or (c) refuse her reinstatement after such leave.
Republic Act (RA) 6725 (1989)	Strengthens the Labor Code ban on sex-based discrimination; expressly includes “pregnancy” as a protected class.
RA 9710 Magna Carta of Women (2009)	Broad anti-discrimination mandate; §37 criminalizes “grave violations” including pregnancy-based dismissal or non-renewal of contract.
RA 11210 105-Day Expanded Maternity Leave Law (2019)	§14: Enjoyment of maternity leave “shall not be used as basis for demotion or termination.” Penalty: ₱20 000 – ₱200 000 fine + imprisonment of 6 years 1 day to 12 years for willful refusal.
RA 11199 Social Security Act of 2018	Denial of SSS maternity benefits constitutes an illegal deduction and may trigger penalties, but also serves as evidence of discriminatory intent.
RA 11058 OSH Law (2018)	Employers must eliminate workplace hazards to pregnant workers; failure can bolster constructive-dismissal claims.

Key point: *Pregnancy is not—*and has never been—listed as either a “just” or “authorized” cause of termination under Arts. 297-299 of the Labor Code.

4. Coverage of trainees, probationary employees, apprentices and interns

Security of tenure attaches from day one. A trainee may be separated only for:
- Just cause (serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross neglect, fraud, etc.); or
- Authorized cause (redundancy, retrenchment, closure)—in which case due process and separation pay are mandatory.
Pregnancy fails both tests. DOLE Department Order 147-15 (2015), Rule I-B, stresses that “status—probationary, project-based, seasonal, or casual—does not dilute protection from discriminatory dismissal.”
Apprenticeships governed by RA 7796 and DOLE Order 12-series-2003 likewise prohibit termination on grounds other than poor apprenticeship performance or business closure.

5. Illustrative jurisprudence

The Supreme Court has repeatedly voided dismissals or training-period non-regularizations linked to pregnancy, awarding extensive monetary relief:

Case	G.R. No.	Ruling
Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. NLRC	118978 (Jan 21 1999)	Employer refused to confer regular status on a pregnant probationary employee, citing “excessive tardiness due to morning sickness.” Court held this was pregnancy-related discrimination; ordered reinstatement + back-wages.
St. Michael’s Institute v. Santos	95590 (Feb 4 1991)	Dismissal of a teacher during her probationary year, justified as “violation of Catholic morals” for being unwed and pregnant, declared unconstitutional.
Century Textile Mills v. NLRC	77859 (May 26 1992)	Mere physical inability to work certain shifts late in pregnancy does not justify termination; employer must offer light-duty work instead.
Grand Asian Shipping Lines v. CA	140533 (Feb 23 2005)	Female seafarer denied re-engagement because of pregnancy won salary for unexpired portion of contract; Court emphasized that contractual-duration defenses cannot override anti-discrimination norms.

Trend: The Court treats pregnancy-based dismissal as discrimination per se—motive need not be proven; the act is inherently unlawful.

6. Procedural remedies for aggrieved workers

NLRC/DOLE complaint
- File within four (4) years (Art. 305).
- Relief: immediate reinstatement, full back-wages, 13th-month pay, and damages (Art. 305 & Art. 294).
Gender discrimination action under RA 9710 §37
- Venue: RTC acting as Special Gender Court or DOJ for criminal prosecution.
SSS grievance for withheld maternity benefits (RA 11199).
Civil suit for damages (Art. 32 Civil Code) when constitutional rights are violated by public employers.

7. Employer compliance checklist

Required measure	Legal basis
Remove “no-pregnancy” or “fit-for-duty” clauses from trainee contracts	Art. 135 LC; RA 6725
Provide maternity leave even during probation/apprenticeship (105 days paid + 30 days optional unpaid)	RA 11210
Offer lighter work or temporary reassignment when physician so certifies	Art. 130-A LC (Night-Work prohibition exceptions) & OSH Law
Maintain written, gender-responsive anti-discrimination policy; orient supervisors yearly	RA 9710 IRR Rule IV
Preserve seniority and training credits accrued before leave	DOLE D.O. 209-20 §3(c)
Keep records of trainee evaluations to prove any dismissal is performance-based, not pregnancy-based	Rule on Employer’s Burden (PT&T case)

Failure to adopt these measures is often treated by courts as evidence of discriminatory intent.

8. Penalties for violators

Labor Code Art. 302: Fine of ₱1 000 – ₱10 000 and/or imprisonment of 3 months – 3 years for prohibited acts against women.
RA 11210 §14: ₱20 000 – ₱200 000 + 6–12 years imprisonment.
RA 9710 §37: Up to 3 years imprisonment + administrative sanctions for government officials.
Moral and exemplary damages commonly exceed back-wages when willful discrimination is shown (Phil. Telegraph case).

9. Interaction with international standards

Although the Philippines has not yet ratified ILO Convention 183 (2000) on Maternity Protection, its domestic framework already meets or exceeds many Convention benchmarks (e.g., 105-day leave, security of tenure, right to re-assignment). The country is a long-standing party to CEDAW; periodic reports consistently highlight Supreme Court anti-discrimination jurisprudence as evidence of compliance.

10. Practical guidance

For employees

Document everything—medical certificates, text messages ordering you to resign, refusal to accept your return after leave.
File a Request for Assistance at the nearest DOLE Single Entry Approach (SEnA) desk to trigger mandatory conciliation.

For employers/HR

Evaluate trainees solely on the pre-stated performance matrix; pregnancy-related absences cannot be factored.
Plan head-count. If head-count truly shrinks for authorized reasons, apply the Last-In-First-Out rule neutrally, or use objective criteria (company-wide) and keep minutes of selection meetings.
Never ask, “Are you pregnant?” during job interviews or training assessments.

11. Emerging challenges

Issue	Ongoing policy discussion
Gig-economy platforms	Whether riders and freelancers—often classified as “independent contractors”—can invoke LC Art. 135. DOLE Advisory 03-2021 hints at extending basic OSH and maternity leave to platform workers.
Tele-work monitoring	Pregnancy-related health data now deemed sensitive personal information under the Data Privacy Act; employers must obtain consent and comply with NPC circulars.
Short-cycle apprenticeships (≤3 months)	Debate on whether the 105-day paid leave rule applies pro-rata or in full; prevailing view: full benefit once SSS eligibility (3 MONTHLY contributions in 12-month period) is satisfied.

12. Conclusion

Pregnancy is an immutable biological condition and a fundamental human experience; Philippine law therefore affords robust protection even at the most precarious stage of employment—the training or probationary period. Dismissal or non-regularization on that ground is per se illegal, entailing reinstatement, heavy monetary awards, and often criminal sanction. Both employers and employees should understand that security of tenure, maternity leave, and non-discrimination are indivisible rights that attach from the first day of service, regardless of contract label.

When in doubt, the rule of thumb is simple: Pregnancy is never a lawful reason to end—or refuse to begin—a woman’s employment.