Legal Bases: International Labor Organizaton Convention

GR 128845 (June 1, 2000)

International School Alliance of Educators (ISAE) v Quisumbing
Kapunan J.
Summarized by Dino Roel De Guzman
*Special Civil Action: Certiorari
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
ISAE Petitioner
Leonardo Quisumbing (Sec of Labor and Employment); Cresenciano Trajano (Acting Sec of Labor
and Employment); Dr. Brian Maccauley (Superintendent of IS-Manila; International School Inc. Respondents
FACTS
1. International School Inc pursuant to PD 732 is a domestic school for dependents of foreign
diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. Sec 2(c): school to employ teaching and
management personnel locally or abroad from such personnel being exempted from otherwise
applicable laws that have been or will be enacted for the protection of employees.
a. School employs four tests to classify if one is a foreign-hire or not.
i. What is ones domicile
ii. Where is ones home economy
iii. To which country does one owe economic allegiance?
iv. Was the individual hired abroad specifically to work in the School and was the
School responsible for bringing that individual to the Philippines.
b. Foreign hires: given benefits such as housing, transportation, shipping costs, taxes and
home leave allowance. They are paid 25% more than local hires. Such is justified
because they have 2 significant economic disadvantages: they have to endure (a)
dislocation factor and (b) limited tenure.
c. Such is to keep the school competitive on international level in terms of attracting
competent professionals.
2. Negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement were held on June 1995, petitioner ISAE
contested the difference of rates (also another issue if they should include foreigners in the
bargaining unit. Deadlock between the parties.
3. Petitioner filed a notice of strike. National Conciliation and Mediation Board failed, thus the
DOLE assumed jurisdiction on the dispute. DOLE acting sec Crescenciano Trajano issued order
resolving parity and representation in favor of the school. Acting sec upheld point of hire
classification for the distinction and that the principle of Equal pay for Equal work does not
apply in the present case because of the international character of the school. That foreign hires
have limited contract of employment and that certain amenities have to be provided to entice
them. The school requires hiring of foreign personnel to deal with different nationalities and
different cultures among the student population.
1

4. DOLE Sec Quisumbing denied petitioners motion for reconsideration. Thus SC.
a. Petitioner: point-of-hire classification by school is discriminatory to Filipinos and that
grant of higher salaries to foreigners = racial discrimination.
b. Respondent: Gives breakdown of members (38 in all with nationalities other than
Filipino who have been hired locally and classified as local hires (they are given same
benefits as Filipino hires).
5. (CBA 1992-1995): conditions and provisions for salary and professional compensation:
All members of the bargaining unit shall be compensated only in accordance with Appendix C
hereof provided that the Superintendent of the School has the discretion to recruit and hire,
expatriate teachers from abroad, under terms and conditions that are consistent with accepted
international practice. Appendix C:
The new salary schedule is deemed at equity with the Overseas Recruited Staff salary schedule.
The 25% differential is reflective of the agreed value of system displacement and contracted
status of the OSRS as differentiated from the tenured status of the Locally recruited staff.
---Said provision demonstrated parties recognition of the difference of the statuses. Thus Union
could not invoke Equal Protection clause because EP of reasonable classification that there is
substantial distinction etc that foreigners have no amenities of their own and that good
compensation package to attract them.
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. Constitutionality/legality of the classification creating differential salary (25%) by the school: NO,
such classification is INVALID
Such amounts to discrimination and public policy, international law both abhor such. Equal Pay
for Equal Work applies notwithstanding the character of IS.
Constitution in Article on Social Justice and Human Rights to give highest priority to the
enactment of measures to protect and enhance right of all and reduce inequalities. Constitution
provides that labor is entitled to humane conditions of work including how employers treat their
employees. It also directs state to promote equality in employment for all.
Art. 19 of CC require everyone to act with justice.
International law (+general principle of law) proscribes discrimination (UN General Assembly).
General principles of fairness and justice is based on the test of what is reasonable. Such is
under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, Convention against Discrimination in Educaion, Convention (No. 111) Concerning
Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation.
o International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Art 7): States recognize
the right of everyone to enjoyment of just and favorable work with fair wages and equal
remuneration without distinction.

On schools contention: SC says such argument is cavalier. That the employer has discriminated
thus has the burden to explain why the employee is treated unfairly. In this case employer failed
to discharge it and no evidence that foreign hires perform 25% more efficiently than local.
o School also cannot invoke need to entice foreign hires to leave domicile b/c it violates
principle of equal work for equal pay. Salary (Blacks law): reward or recompense for
SERVICES PERFORMED.
o Dislocation factor and limited tenure already compensated by benefits such as housing,
transpo, etc.
But SC agrees that foreign-hires do not belong to the same bargaining unit as local-hires.
BARGAINING UNIT: group of employees of a given employer comprised of all or less than all of
the employees consistent with equity to the employer, indicate to be the best suited to serve
the reciprocal rights and duties of tje parties under the collective bargaining prov of the law.
Factors:
o Will of employees
o Affinity and unity of employees interest
o Prior collective bargaining history
o Similarity of employment status.
In this case foreign hires did not indicate intentions to be groups with local for Collective
bargaining. Liited tenure and granted benefits justify exclusion.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition granted in part Orders of secretary of Labor and Employment reversed and set aside
insofar as they uphold the practice of respondent of according foreign-hires higher salaries.