GR No: 198587 Jan.14,2015 Leonen, J. SUMMARY: Various flight attendants got pregnant while working for Saudi Arabia Airlines, to which they requested for Maternity leaves. Apparently there was a recently passed Unified Employment Contracts which allowed for them to be terminated should they ever be pregnant due to lack of physical fitness. The flight attendants were made to resign upon threat of losing any benefits they might have should they have resigned, and thus petition for illegal dismissal; Petitioner Airlines claim that the Labor Arbiter and NLRC do not have jurisdiction. DOCTRINE: Labor Contracts are a matter of Public Policy, and thus Philippine laws clearly find application in this case.
Dale Tuddleezy | Law 113 | Group 2
FACTS: 1) Petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines is a 5)November 8,2007 - Respondents filed foreign corporation established and a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter existing under the Royal Decree No. against Saudia and its officers for illegal M/24 of Jeddah, who hired Respondents dismissal and for underpayment, along as flight attendants. After undergoing with moral and exemplary damages, seminars required by the Philippine and attorney's fees. Petitioner Airlines Overseas Employment Administration contests the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction, for deployment overseas, as well as as the contract’s points referred to training modules offered by Saudia, foreign law and that Respondents had Respondents became Temporary and no cause of action since they already then eventually Permanent Flight voluntarily resigned. Attendants; they entered into the necessary Cabin Attendant Contracts 6) Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed with Saudi. the complaint, but on appeal the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision 2) Respondents were released from and denied Petitioner Airlines’ Motion service on separate dates in 2006; for Reconsideration, hence the current claimed that such release was illegal appeal. since the basis of termination of contract was solely because they were RELEVANT ISSUE: pregnant. They claim that they had WON the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC informed Saudia of their respective has jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian pregnancies and had gone through the Airlines and apply Philippine jurisdiction necessary procedures to process their over the dispute? YES. Summons maternity leaves and while initially, were validly served on Saudia and Saudia had given its approval, they jurisdiction over it validly acquired. ultimately reneged and rather required them to file for resignation.
3) Respondents claim that Petitioner
Airlines threatened that if they would not resign, they would be terminated along with loss of benefits, separation pay, and ticket discount entitlements; they anchored such on its “Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin Attendants" which provides that “ if the Air Hostess becomes pregnant at any time during the term of this contract, Furthermore, contracts relating to this shall render her employment labor and employment are contract as void and she will be impressed with public interest. terminated due to lack of medical Article 1700 of the Civil Code fitness. “ provides that "[t]he relation between RATIO: capital and labor are not merely No doubt that the pleadings were contractual. They are so impressed served to Petitioner Airlines through with public interest that labor their counsel, however they claim contracts must yield to the common that the NLRC and Labor Arbiter had good. no jurisdiction since summons were Pakistan Airlines Ruling: relationship served to Saudi Airlines Manila and is much affected with public interest not to them, Saudi Airlines Jeddah. and that the otherwise applicable Saudi Airlines Manila was neither a Philippine laws and regulations party to the Cabin attendant cannot be rendered illusory by the contracts nor funded the parties agreeing upon some other Respondents, and it was to Saudi law to govern their relationship. Jeddah that they filed their As the present dispute relates to (what resignations. Court ruled however the respondents allege to be) the illegal that b y its own admission, Saudia, termination of respondents' while a foreign corporation, has a employment, this case is immutably a Philippine office, and that under the matter of public interest and public Foreign Investments act of 1991, policy. Consistent with clear they are a foreign corporation doing pronouncements in law and business in the Phils and therefore jurisprudence, Philippine laws properly are subject to Philippine jurisdiction. find application in and govern this case. DISPOSITIVE: Petitioner Airlines also asserts that the Cabin Attendant Contracts Appealed Decision is Affirmed, case is require the application of the laws of remanded for a detailed Saudi Arabia rather than those of the computation of the amount to be Philippines. It claims that the paid by Saudi Airlines. difficulty of ascertaining foreign law calls into operation the principle of forum non conveniens, thereby rendering improper the exercise of jurisdiction by Philippine tribunals. Court: Forum non conveniens finds no application and does not operate to divest Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction and to require the application of foreign law. Though Article 1306 of the Civil Code provides that Parties may stipulate terms they may deem convenient, Philippine tribunals may not lose sight of considerations of law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy that underlie the contract. Article II, Sections 1 and 14 of the 1987 Constitution ensures the equal protection of persons, and the equality between men and women. Though pregnancy does present physical limitations that may render difficult the performance of functions associated with being a flight attendant, it would be the height of iniquity to view pregnancy as a disability so permanent and immutable that, it must entail the termination of one's employment.