The Philippine Labor Code prohibits paying a female employee less than a male employee for work of equal value, using the equal-value standard but prescribing no factor-based method. The relevant article was renumbered from 135 to 133.
The Philippine Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442) contains one of Asia's earlier equal-value provisions. Article 135 — renumbered Article 133 in the current codification — makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a female employee with respect to terms and conditions of employment solely on account of sex, and names as a prohibited act paying a female employee less than a male employee "for work of equal value."
That phrase places the Philippines above same-work-only regimes: the comparison is not limited to identical jobs. But the Code stops there — it prescribes no compensable factors and no evaluation method, and no implementing regulation supplies one. Equivalence between different jobs is a case-by-case question for the Department of Labor and Employment and the courts, argued without a statutory yardstick.
The Philippines has ratified ILO Convention 100, whose framework — objective appraisal of jobs on skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions — is the recognized way to give the equal-value phrase operational content.
The prohibition binds all employers. Discrimination claims proceed through the DOLE's enforcement machinery and the National Labor Relations Commission, and the criminal provisions of the Labor Code can also attach to willful discrimination. In practice, reported equal-value litigation is sparse — the provision's breadth has historically outrun its enforcement — but the exposure is real wherever a pay difference between a female employee and a male comparator cannot be justified.
Two practical notes for employers. First, the renumbering: compliance documentation and policies citing Article 135 should be updated to cite Article 133 (or both), as current official codifications use the new numbering. Second, the direction of travel in the region — South Korea's statutory factors, and the global wave led by the EU Directive — suggests the gap between the Philippines' equal-value language and any prescribed methodology will eventually narrow; multinational employers are increasingly applying their group-wide evaluation standards in the Philippines rather than waiting.
A broad standard with no prescribed method puts the burden — and the opportunity — on the employer:
The Labor Code asks whether work is of equal value but never says how to tell. Employers who can answer analytically hold the stronger position in any forum that question reaches.
Government-published job evaluation tools, guides, and templates — each links directly to the official source.
No method is mandated — but the standard is equal value. The Labor Code prohibits paying a female employee less than a male employee for work of equal value (Article 135, renumbered Article 133), which is broader than same-work protection, though the law prescribes no compensable-factor methodology for establishing equivalence.
Both refer to the same provision. The Labor Code was renumbered, so the historic Article 135 on discrimination in pay is now cited as Article 133. Older sources use 135; current ones use 133.
The Labor Code uses the equal-value phrase without defining a method, so equivalence between different jobs falls to be argued case by case. Internationally, the standard is assessed on skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions — the framework of ILO Convention 100, which the Philippines has ratified.
PointFactors implements the analytical, factor-based methodology referenced by pay equity laws worldwide.
Book a DemoInformational summary of legal requirements, not legal advice. Verify against primary sources before relying on it.
Last reviewed: 2026-06-11