Republic Act 8187: Paternity Leave Act of 1996

AN ACT GRANTING PATERNITY LEAVE OF SEVEN (7) DAYS WITH FULL PAY TO
ALL MARRIED EMPLOYEES IN THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS FOR THE
FIRST FOUR (4) DELIVERIES OF THE LEGITIMATE SPOUSE WITH WHOM HE IS
COHABITING AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Introduction
The paternity law outlines the provisions companies must offer to fathers of newborns,
specifying the duration, financial support, and other related benefits. This legal
framework is essential in challenging traditional gender roles that have historically
relegated caregiving to women. By recognizing that both parents can and should share
caregiving responsibilities, society can foster a more balanced and supportive family
environment, ultimately enhancing the emotional well-being of all family members.

Implementing robust paternity policies is crucial for advancing this change. Such
policies enable fathers to take leave to support their partners and care for their children,
improving their work-life balance. Increased paternal involvement not only enhances
productivity but also promotes a collaborative workplace culture. Organizations that
prioritize flexible work arrangements and paternity leave contribute to higher employee
satisfaction and retention, highlighting the substantial benefits of recognizing fathers as
active caregivers for families and society.

Background

The Paternity Leave Act of 1996, officially known as Republic Act No. 8187, represents
a significant advancement in family-related labor policies in the Philippines. This
legislation was developed through the consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1032 and House
Bill No. 7134, and it was approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives on
June 8, 1996. Following this approval, it was signed into law by President Fidel V.
Ramos on June 11, 1996. The Act aims to recognize and support the role of fathers
during the childbirth process.
Under this law, qualified male employees are entitled to a maximum of seven days of
paternity leave, which can be taken within 60 days of the delivery of their child. This
provision is designed to encourage fathers to actively participate in the early stages of
their child's life, fostering family bonding and support. Additionally, the Act includes
measures to protect employees from discrimination or penalties associated with taking
paternity leave, ensuring that this benefit is provided without deductions from the
employee's salary. Overall, Republic Act No. 8187 establishes an important framework
for promoting gender equality and family support in the workplace

Provision

SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Paternity Leave Act of
1996“.

SECTION 2. Notwithstanding any law, rules and regulations to the contrary, every
married male employee in the private and public sectors shall be entitled to a paternity
leave of seven (7) days with full pay for the first four (4) deliveries of the legitimate
spouse with whom he is cohabiting. The male employee applying for paternity leave
shall notify his employer of the pregnancy of his legitimate spouse and the expected
date of such delivery.
For purposes, of this Act, delivery shall include childbirth or any miscarriage.

SECTION 3. Definition of Term. – For purposes of this Act, Paternity Leave refers to
the benefits granted to a married male employee allowing him not to report for work for
seven (7)
days but continues to earn the compensation therefor, on the condition that his spouse
has delivered a child or suffered a miscarriage for purposes of enabling him to
effectively lend
support to his wife in her period of recovery and/or in the nursing of the newly-born
child.

SECTION 4. The Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Chairman of the Civil
Service Commission and the Secretary of Health shall, within thirty (30) days from the
effectivity of
this Act, issue such rules and regulations necessary for the proper implementation of
the provisions hereof.

SECTION 5. Any person, corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or entity found
violating this Act or the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding Twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000) or imprisonment of not
less than thirty (30)days nor more than six (6) months.
If the violation is committed by a corporation, trust or firm, partnership, association or
any other entity, the penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed on the entity’s
responsible officers, including, but not limited to, the president, vice-president, chief
executive officer, general manager, managing director or partner directly responsible
therefor.

6. Non-diminution Clause. – Nothing in this Act shall be construed to reduce any

existing benefits of any form granted under existing laws, decrees, executive orders, or
any
contract agreement or policy between employer and employee.

SECTION 7. Repealing Clause. – All laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, issuances,

or parts thereof which are inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or modified
accordingly.

SECTION 8. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect (15) days from its publication in the
Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of national circulation.
 Cases
G.r No. 185556
Supreme Steel Corporation. Petitioner
Vs.
Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng supreme Independent Union (NMS-IND-APL),
Respondent..

Case Overview

This case revolves around a legal conflict involving Supreme Steel Corporation (the petitioner), a
domestic enterprise primarily engaged in the manufacture of steel pipes for both local and international
markets. The opposing party, Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Supreme Independent Union (the
respondent), serves as the certified bargaining agent for the rank-and-file employees of Supreme
Steel Corporation. The respondent has raised serious allegations against the petitioner, claiming
eleven violations of the established Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).

A key issue in this dispute is the alleged denial of paternity leave benefits. The respondent asserts that
the petitioner wrongfully denied paternity leave to two employees, citing their failure to meet the
notification requirements mandated by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.
8187 (Paternity Leave Act of 1995). This law stipulates that employees must formally notify their
employer about their spouse’s pregnancy and the anticipated delivery date to be eligible for paternity
leave.

Supreme Steel Corporation has acknowledged that it denied the paternity leave claims based on
these requirements. However, the union contends that the company's strict adherence to technicalities
undermines the intent of the law. The union argues that enforcing such notification requirements can
be unjust, suggesting that employees should receive benefits during significant life events regardless
of missed notifications.
According to Section of Republic Act No. 8187, it states, “Notwithstanding any law, rules and
regulations to the contrary, every married male employee in the private and public sectors shall be
entitled to a paternity leave of seven (7) days with full pay for the first four (4) deliveries of the legitimate
spouse with whom he is cohabiting. The male employee applying for paternity leave shall notify his
employer of the pregnancy of his legitimate spouse and the expected date of such delivery. For
purposes of this Act, delivery shall include childbirth or any miscarriage.”

The explicit requirement for employees to notify their employer clearly indicates that the oversight of
the respondents in communicating with the petitioner carries implications. Consequently, the National
Labor Relations Commission ruled in favor of the respondents, a decision that was subsequently
affirmed by both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

[G.R. NO. 182836: October 13, 2009]

CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON.

ACCREDITED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ALLAN S. MONTAÑO and
NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG CENTRO STEEL CORPORATION-
SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND
REFORMS (NMCSC-SUPER), Respondents.

Overview

CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. HON.

ACCREDITED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ALLAN S. MONTAÑO and
NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG CENTRO STEEL CORPORATION-
SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND
REFORMS (NMCSC-SUPER), Respondents.

In the case of Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation vs. Nagkakaisa ng

Manggagawa ng Centro Steel Corporation, the collective bargaining representative for
Rolando P. Hortillano, the petitioner, is seeking benefits for Paternity Leave,
Bereavement Leave, and Death and Accident Insurance for dependents. This claim is
based on the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) concluded between Continental
Steel and the Union.

The claim arises from the death of Hortillano's unborn child. Hortillano's wife, Marife V.
Hortillano, experienced a premature delivery on January 5, 2006, while she was in the
38th week of her pregnancy. According to the Certificate of Fetal Death dated January
7, 2006, the female fetus died during labor due to fetal anoxia secondary to
uteroplacental insufficiency.

Continental Steel immediately granted Hortillano's claim for paternity leave but denied
his claims for bereavement leave and other death benefits, which included death and
accident insurance. The provision of paternity leave is outlined in Section 3 of the CBA,
which states that employees can continue to earn their compensation if their spouse
has delivered a child or suffered a miscarriage. This provision allows the employee to
effectively support their spouse during recovery and the nursing of the newborn child.

Thus, the argument regarding the provision of these benefits is clear: the respondent
has the right to receive these benefits while the case continues, especially regarding
whether the unborn child can be considered a dependent under the CBA. This
interpretation was later affirmed by the Supreme Court.