Short answer. No. Article 137 of the Labor Code expressly makes it unlawful to discharge or refuse the admission of a woman returning to her work for fear that she may again be pregnant. Your employer's stated reason is the very conduct the provision names and forbids.
What the law says
To discharge or refuse the admission of such woman upon returning to her work for fear that she may again be pregnant.
Labor Code, Article 137 — Prohibited Acts Against Women. Read the full provision →
The law anticipated this exact reason
Most employment prohibitions are written in general terms and have to be applied to the facts. This one is not. It identifies the moment — upon returning to her work — and it identifies the motive — for fear that she may again be pregnant — and declares that combination unlawful. An employer who says this out loud has not offered a defence; he has described the offence. The fear may even be sincerely held and commercially rational, and it makes no difference: the article removes future pregnancy from the list of things an employer may act on.
'Refuse the admission' covers the soft refusals too
The clause bars discharge and, separately, a refusal to admit you back. That second word matters, because a return is more often frustrated than formally denied. Being told there is no longer a post for you, being left unscheduled week after week, being placed on an indefinite floating status, or being offered a lesser role on worse terms are all refusals of admission in substance. Nothing needs to be signed for the prohibition to be engaged. What counts is whether you were in fact restored to your work, not whether a dismissal letter exists.
A substituted reason does not cure it
Once challenged, employers usually reach for something else — the position was absorbed during your absence, headcount was cut, the replacement performed better. Those grounds are not impossible, but they have to stand on their own and predate the return. A restructure discovered in the week you were due back, applied to no one else, and preceded by remarks about your family plans, is not a restructure. The pointed question in any such case is simple: what would have happened had you returned from an equally long absence for any other reason?
Record the return, not just the leave
Evidence tends to be gathered for the leave and neglected for the return, which is where the claim actually lives. Put your intention to return in writing and keep the reply. Record the date you reported back, who received you, and precisely what you were told. Preserve rosters or schedules from the weeks afterwards showing you were left off, and save any message referring to your having children or to another pregnancy. Take that record to a lawyer promptly, since delay in asserting a return is the argument the employer will lean on.
Where the leave itself now comes from
One thing on this page needs separating from the rest. The prohibition you are relying on — that an employer may not refuse to take a woman back for fear she will fall pregnant again — is live, and is the part that answers your question. The leave that sits behind it is not governed by this chapter any more. Republic Act No. 11210 (2019) replaced it, changing both how long the leave runs and how it is availed of through the social security system. So if the argument turns on the length of your leave, when it ended, or whether you were still on it when you were refused, take those dates from that Act and not from the older provisions this chapter describes. The prohibition applies either way.