Employment 2025

PHILIPPINES Law and Practice Contributed by: Rashel Ann C Pomoy and Paolo Miguel Consignado, Villaraza & Angangco

period of the employee. This abandons the previous rule that probationary employees may only be award - ed back wages up to the expiration of their probation - ary period. In the recent case of Philippine Airlines v Ahmee, et al. , G.R. No. 221065, dated 7 April 2025, the Supreme Court clarified the standards for proving money claims related to employee salaries and benefits. It stated that payrolls and vouchers can serve as acceptable proof of payment only if they clearly show that the employees actually received these benefits. Addition - ally, when payments are made through electronic wire transfers, such as automatic payroll arrangements with banks, employers are required to provide proof that they instructed their bank to credit their employ - ees’ payroll accounts. According to the Supreme Court, the mere submission of payroll registers and payslips would only constitute proof that the employer has prepared the corresponding payroll, but not as actual proof of payment to its employees. Additionally, the following reliefs are also granted: • moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees; and • legal interest on separation pay, back wages, and other monetary awards. 8.2 Anti-Discrimination In General Where the employer fails to treat employees equal - ly despite there being no rational basis for the dis - tinction, such as when they are denied privileges which are granted to others under similar conditions and circumstances, the employee claims damages under Article 32 of the Philippine Civil Code against the employer with the Labour Arbiter. As this forum is merely administrative in nature, only substantial evidence is required, or such an amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as ade - quate to justify a conclusion. Age Republic Act No 1091, or the “Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act”, prohibits employers from dis - criminating based on age in matters of compensation, working conditions, promotions, or training opportu -

nities. Employers also cannot terminate employees solely due to age or enforce early retirement based on age. However, age limitations are permissible pro - vided that they fall under any of the exceptions as provided under Section 6 of the Act, such as when age is a bona fide occupational qualification neces - sary for the business. Violations of the Anti-Age Discrimination in Employ - ment Act expose the employer to criminal liabil - ity, punishable by a fine ranging from PHP50,000 to PHP500,000, imprisonment of three months to two years, or both penalties, at the discretion of the court. The offended party is entitled to damages arising from the crime under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code. As a violation of this Act is criminal in nature, the guilt of the employer must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or the evidence must produce a conviction in the mind of a sensible, impartial person. Moral and exemplary damages may also be sought before the Labour Arbiter under Articles 2217 and 2229 of the Civil Code, respectively, which only require substantial evidence. Gender and/or Marital Status Article 133 of the Philippine Labour Code, as amend - ed by Republic Act No 6725, prohibits employers from discriminating against female employees with respect to the terms and conditions of employment based solely on their sex, including paying female employ - ees less than male employees for work of equal value, and favouring male employees over female employ - ees in matters like promotion, training, or scholarship opportunities. Violations of this provision are criminal in nature, resulting in a penalty of a fine ranging from PHP1,000 to PHP10,000, or imprisonment of not less than three months and not more than three years, or both, at the discretion of the court, including damages result - ing from the criminal offence to be awarded to the offended party. Moral damages and exemplary dam - ages may also be claimed.

437 CHAMBERS.COM