Under Philippine labor law and social legislation, the prohibition against stipulations that restrict an employee’s right to marry—commonly known as the ban on “stipulation against marriage”—is firmly established as a form of gender-based discrimination. Below is a comprehensive exposition of all relevant legal principles, statutory provisions, and jurisprudential guidelines on this matter, drawn from the Labor Code, its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), and related special laws, notably R.A. No. 10151, R.A. No. 7877, R.A. No. 9710, R.A. No. 7192, the Social Security Act, R.A. No. 11210, R.A. No. 8187, and R.A. No. 10028.

1. Foundational Legal Basis in the Labor Code

Prohibition Under the Labor Code:
Prior to the 2015 renumbering of the Labor Code, Article 136 (now renumbered as Article 134 under Department of Labor and Employment [DOLE] Department Order No. 149-16) expressly declares it unlawful for an employer to require, as a condition of employment or continuation of employment, that a woman employee shall remain unmarried. Likewise, the law prohibits the dismissal of a female employee on account of marriage.

Key Principle: Any employer policy or contract provision denying employment or continuity of employment to a woman due to her marital status—whether existing or potential—is per se void for being violative of the Labor Code and public policy.
Rationale Behind the Prohibition:
The fundamental objective is to uphold equal employment opportunities for women and to prevent discrimination on the basis of gender and civil status. By prohibiting “no-marriage” conditions, the Labor Code ensures that female workers enjoy security of tenure, career advancement prospects, and freedom from arbitrary policies that prejudice their marital choices.

2. Constitutional and Policy Framework

Constitutional Mandate:
The 1987 Philippine Constitution enshrines the State’s duty to protect working women and promote gender equality (Article II, Sections 14 and 18; Article XIII, Section 14). Any form of discrimination—such as stipulations against marriage—offends constitutional values of social justice, dignity, and equal protection.
Public Policy:
Public policy in the Philippines strongly discourages gender-based disparities. Discriminatory practices against women in the workplace, including policies restricting marriage, stand contrary to the country’s commitments under international conventions (e.g., the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW) and domestic statutes.

3. Interplay with Other Social Legislation

While the primary legal anchor is in the Labor Code, several other statutes reinforce the overall policy against discrimination and support women’s rights and welfare in employment contexts. Although they do not all explicitly mention “stipulation against marriage,” they collectively foster a legal environment in which such a stipulation would be deemed incompatible with progressive labor standards.

R.A. No. 9710 (Magna Carta of Women):
This comprehensive women’s rights law mandates the elimination of discrimination against women. It requires all sectors, including employers, to uphold equality. Under the Magna Carta of Women, any workplace policy that conditions employment on the employee’s marital decisions is considered a gender-biased measure and thus unlawful.
R.A. No. 7192 (Women in Development and Nation Building Act):
This statute promotes the full integration of women in economic development and mandates that women be given the same opportunities accorded to men. Requiring that women remain single as a condition of employment contravenes these principles of equal opportunity and empowerment.
R.A. No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act):
While primarily focused on preventing sexual harassment, R.A. No. 7877 supports a work environment free from gender-based discrimination. Stipulations against marriage contribute to a hostile environment that treats women unequally and, while distinct from harassment, are aligned with the type of discrimination these protective laws aim to eradicate.
R.A. No. 10151 (Employment of Night Workers):
Although this law deals primarily with the conditions for night work, particularly for women, it must be harmonized with the non-discrimination ethos of other labor standards. Any form of discrimination, including marital restrictions, remains prohibited even in specialized work arrangements.
R.A. No. 11210 (105-Day Expanded Maternity Leave Law):
This law expands the maternity leave benefits of female workers. It exemplifies the State’s recognition of women’s reproductive roles and family life, ensuring that marriage and motherhood are not grounds for adverse employment action. While R.A. No. 11210 does not directly address “no-marriage” clauses, its spirit is wholly inconsistent with policies that penalize women for entering into marriage.
R.A. No. 8187 (Paternity Leave Act):
By providing paternity leave benefits, this law shows legislative intent to support and protect the family, including the mother. An employer’s insistence on remaining unmarried contradicts the State’s policies that strengthen family units and underscore the legitimacy of marital and parental roles.
R.A. No. 10028 (Breastfeeding in the Workplace):
This law, by ensuring workplace facilities for breastfeeding mothers, similarly reflects the State’s support for employees’ family responsibilities. It underscores that motherhood and familial roles must not be penalized but rather supported, rendering “no-marriage” policies not only repugnant but illogical in the larger legal framework.
Social Security Act (R.A. 11199, as amended):
The Social Security Act provides protection to workers and their beneficiaries, without discrimination based on sex or marital status. Any private employment practice that discriminates against a woman on the basis of her decision to marry would be incompatible with the social justice objectives of extending social security protection to all workers and their dependents, including spouses.

4. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs) and DOLE Guidelines

The DOLE’s IRRs and related department orders consistently implement and reiterate the prohibition of discriminatory practices, including those against marriage. The DOLE’s policy documents:

Affirm that women’s civil status cannot be made a condition of employment.
Require that employment contracts, company manuals, and personnel policies be free from gender-discriminatory provisions.
Empower labor inspectors to sanction employers who maintain such prohibited stipulations.

5. Jurisprudence and Administrative Interpretations

Philippine jurisprudence has fortified the prohibition against “no-marriage” stipulations. Notable Supreme Court rulings have consistently held that policies precluding marriage or penalizing a female employee for getting married violate the Labor Code and constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Courts have struck down such policies as unlawful and ordered reinstatement and compensation for affected employees.

Key Case: Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company (PT&T) v. National Labor Relations Commission, among other cases, recognized the illegality of “no-marriage” clauses, declaring them discriminatory and contrary to public policy. The High Court emphasized that the Labor Code’s intent is to protect women’s rights in the workplace and ensure that their fundamental freedom to choose marriage is not hindered by economic coercion or employment conditions.

6. Penalties, Remedies, and Enforcement

Employers who impose a stipulation against marriage risk:

Administrative Sanctions: Fines, penalties, and possible suspension or revocation of business permits following labor inspections or compliance audits by the DOLE.
Civil Liabilities: Wrongfully terminated employees on account of marriage may seek reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Criminal Liabilities: While generally remedial and regulatory, certain violations of the Labor Code and related special laws may carry criminal penalties under specific circumstances, especially if the discriminatory practice is coupled with other unlawful acts.

7. Harmonization with Gender Equality and Family-Oriented Policies

The overall legislative scheme in the Philippines—rooted in the Constitution, the Labor Code, and myriad special laws—demonstrates a profound commitment to protecting women workers from discrimination. By prohibiting stipulations against marriage, the legal framework affirms women’s right to personal autonomy, their entitlement to equal employment opportunities, and the State’s promotion of the family as a social institution.

8. Practical Implications for Employers and Employees

For Employers:
Employers must review their employment manuals, contracts, and human resource policies to ensure compliance with the law. They should establish measures that promote gender equality and eliminate any form of marital-status-based discrimination.
For Employees:
Female employees (and male employees as well, should an analogous scenario arise) can confidently assert their right to marry or not marry without fear of losing their jobs. They have legal remedies available if subjected to marital discrimination, including filing complaints with the DOLE, seeking relief from the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), or pursuing cases up to the appellate courts if necessary.

9. Conclusion

The prohibition against stipulating that a female employee must remain unmarried is not an isolated legal provision; it sits at the intersection of constitutional principles, labor rights, gender equality standards, and the State’s protective policies for the family. The web of laws—encompassing the Labor Code, Magna Carta of Women (R.A. No. 9710), Women in Development Act (R.A. No. 7192), Anti-Sexual Harassment Act (R.A. No. 7877), Expanded Maternity Leave Law (R.A. No. 11210), Paternity Leave Act (R.A. No. 8187), Breastfeeding in the Workplace Act (R.A. No. 10028), and implementing rules—collectively renders any “no-marriage” policy unlawful and socially unacceptable. The Philippines’ labor legal framework, as a whole, stands firmly against gender-based discrimination and ensures that freedom to marry remains an inviolable personal right, fully protected in the realm of employment.