DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN:

129. What are the acts considered discriminatory against women under the
law?
It shall be unlawful for any employer:
(1) To deny any woman employee the benefits provided for in the law or to
discharge any woman employed by him for the purpose of preventing her from enjoying
any of the benefits provided under the Labor Code.
(2) To discharge such woman on account of her pregnancy, or while on leave or
in confinement due to her pregnancy;
(3) To discharge or refuse the admission of such woman upon returning to her
work for fear that she may again be pregnant;
(4) To pay lesser compensation to a female employee as against a male
employee for work of equal value.
(3) To favor a male employee over a female employee with respect to promotion,
training opportunities, study and scholarship grants solely on account of their sexes.

Art 137. Prohibited acts. It shall be unlawful for any employer:

(1) To discharge any woman employed by him for the purpose of preventing such
woman from enjoying the maternity leave, facilities and other benefits provided under the
Code;
(2) To discharge such woman employee on account of her pregnancy, or while on
leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy;
(3) To discharge or refuse the admission of such woman upon returning to her
work for fear that she may be pregnant;

OMNIBUS RULES
IMPLEMENTING THE LABOR CODE
RULE XII
Employment of Women and Minors

SECTION 13. Prohibited acts. It shall be unlawful for any employer:

(a) To discharge any woman employed by him for the purpose of preventing such
woman from enjoying the maternity leave, facilities and other benefits provided under the
Code;
 (b) To discharge such woman employee on account of her pregnancy, or while on
leave or in confinement due to her pregnancy;
(c) To discharge or refuse the admission of such woman upon returning to her
work for fear that she may be pregnant;
(d) To discharge any woman or child or any other employee for having filed a
complaint or having testified or being about to testify under the Code; and
(e) To require as a condition for a continuation of employment that a woman
employee shall not get married or 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 otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by
reason of her marriage.

The worker may answer the allegations stated against him in the first notice
within a reasonable period from receipt of such notice. The decision to dismiss must
come only after the employee is given a reasonable period from receipt of the first notice
within which to answer the charge and ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself
with the assistance of a representative, if he so desires. This is in consonance with the
express provision of the law on the protection to labor and the broader dictates of
procedural due process. Non-compliance therewith is fatal because these requirements
are conditions sine qua non before dismissal may be validly effected. (Austria vs. Hon.
NLRC, G. R. No. 124382, Aug. 16, 1999).
The law mandates that every opportunity and assistance must be accorded to
the employee by the management to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense.
(IBM Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, 305 SCRA 592 [1999]). The law does not specify what
constitutes reasonable period within which an employee being cited administratively
must submit his answer or explanation. The reasonableness of the period necessarily
depends on the distinctive circumstances of each case.
For instance, in the case of Asuncion vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 129329, July 31,
2001], the Supreme Court, considered the two-day period given to petitioner to explain
and answer the charges against her as most unreasonable, considering that she was
charged with several offenses and infractions (35 absences, 23 half-days and 108
tardiness), some of which were allegedly committed almost a year before, not to mention
the fact that the charges leveled against her lacked particularity. Apart from chronic
absenteeism and habitual tardiness, petitioner was also made to answer for loitering and
wasting company time, getting salary of an absent employee without acknowledging or
signing for it and disobedience and insubordination.
26. What is hearing requirement in termination for cause? The essence of
due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A formal or trial-type hearing is not
at all times and in all instances essential, as the due process requirements are satisfied
where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the
controversy at hand. What is frowned upon is the absolute lack of notice and hearing.
(Valiao vs. Hon. CA, G. R. No. 146621, July 30, 2004; Cindy & Lynsy Garment vs.
NLRC, 284 SCRA 38 [1998]).
Ample opportunity means every kind of assistance that management must
accord to the employee to enable him to prepare adequately for his defense including
legal representation. (IBM Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC, G. R. No. 117221, April 13, 1999,
305 SCRA 592). Outright termination violates due process. The employer should
give an employee who committed an act considered lawful cause for his dismissal, the
opportunity to explain or present his side. There should be no outright termination of his
employment without due process. Otherwise, it will be a violation of his right to security
of tenure and due process of law. (Robusta Agro Marine Products, Inc. vs. Gorombalem,
G. R. No. 80500, July 5, 1989).

a. For termination based on just causes under Article 282.

Due process under Article 282 means compliance with the
following requirements of two (2) notices and a hearing:
(a) A written notice (first notice) served on the employee
specifying the ground or grounds for termination, and
giving to said employee reasonable opportunity to
explain his side;
(b) A hearing or conference (or at least an opportunity to
be heard) during which the employee concerned, with
the assistance of counsel if the employee so desires, is
given opportunity to respond to the charge, present his
 evidence or rebut the evidence presented against him;
and
(c) A written notice of termination (second notice) served
on the employee indicating that upon due
consideration of all the circumstances, grounds have
been established to justify his termination. (PNB vs.
Cabansag, G. R. No. 157010, June 21, 2005; Millares vs.
PLDT, G. R. No. 154078, May 6, 2005).
Time and again, the rule is that in illegal dismissal cases, the onus of proving
that the employee was not dismissed or if dismissed, that the dismissal was not
illegal, rests on the employer and failure to discharge the same would mean that the
dismissal is not justified and, therefore, illegal. (Limketkai Sons Milling, Inc. vs.
Llamera, G. R. No. 152514, July 12, 2005).