Short answer. No — it is a crime. The Revised Penal Code punishes any person, agent or officer who forces or compels a worker, directly or indirectly, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind. The current penalties are those set by Republic Act No. 10951 (2017).
What the law says
who shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind
Revised Penal Code, Article 288 — Compulsory Purchase And Token Wages. Read the full provision →
"Directly or indirectly" is the part employers underestimate
Nobody stands at the gate with a weapon telling workers where to shop, and the law does not require that. The offence reaches compulsion that is indirect, which covers the arrangements that actually happen: goods charged against wages before payday, a quota of merchandise every worker is expected to take, overtime or shifts quietly withheld from those who buy elsewhere, or a rule that uniforms, tools and supplies may only be sourced from one designated seller at that seller's price. The provision also catches an employer who does not organise the scheme but knowingly permits a foreman, contractor or labour supplier to run it. Looking the other way is written into the offence.
The penalty, and why the figure you read matters
The article as it stands today imposes arresto mayor or a fine ranging from Forty thousand pesos (₱40,000) to One hundred thousand pesos (₱100,000), or both. Those amounts come from Republic Act No. 10951 of 2017, which revised the fines and property values throughout the Revised Penal Code. This matters because a great many printed and online copies of the Code still reproduce the 1930 figures untouched, and the difference is not cosmetic — across the Code the old thresholds run in the thousands where the current ones run to millions. If you are relying on a source for a peso amount, check first whether it has been updated for RA 10951.
Paying in tokens instead of money
The same article carries a companion prohibition aimed at a related abuse: paying wages by means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the Philippines. Chits, coupons, store credit and goods-in-lieu-of-pay all fall within that description. The only carve-out is where the arrangement is expressly requested by the laborer or employee — a request from the worker, not a policy handed down and signed under pressure at hiring. So a scheme that pays partly in company scrip redeemable only at the company outlet potentially engages both halves of this article at once.
What to do, and the limits of this rule
Evidence is what turns a grievance into a case, so keep payslips showing goods deducted, the store receipts or chits, memos or group messages announcing the requirement, and names of co-workers under the same arrangement. Because this is a criminal provision, it is pursued as a complaint before the prosecutor rather than as a money claim, though the same facts may also support labour claims for wages unlawfully deducted or withheld. Note the boundary: an employer may lawfully offer goods, a canteen or a cooperative store, and may sell to workers who genuinely choose to buy. What the law strikes at is compulsion. No page can tell you how a particular complaint will be resolved.