ISAE Vs Quisumbing [ G.R. No.

128845, June 01, 2000 ]

INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS

(ISAE), PETITIONER, VS. HON. LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; HON. CRESENCIANO B.
TRAJANO IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE ACTING
SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT; DR. BRIAN
MACCAULEY IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL-
MANILA; AND INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, INC.,
RESPONDENTS.

Kapunan, J.

1. Private Respondent International school inc. is a domestic

educational institution established for the dependents of
foreingsn diplomatic personnel and temporary residents
and is allowed to hire its own teaching personel locally or
abroad, from PH or other nationalities, such personnel
being exempt from appilcable laws and regulations
attending their employment, except laws that have been,
or will be enacted for the protection of employees.
2. They classify employee to foreign hires and local hires.
And determined by four test. 1 domicile, 2 home economy,
3. One owe economic allegiance 4. Was the person hired
abroad and brought by the school to PH. As such, if the
answer points to PH then the personel is local hire
otherwise foreign.
3. Teh school grants the foreign hires benefits not accorded
to the local hires, these includes: housing, transpo,
shipping cost, taxes and home leave travel allowance and
25 %more sallary from the local hire . This is on the
 ground according to school that foreign hires have a. The
dislocation factor and b. The limited tenure. The reason
for these is for the school adaptive measure to remain
competitive on an international level in terms of attracting
competent professional in the field of international al
education.
4. In the collective bargaining agreement the petitioner
contested the difference in salary rates between foreign
hires and local hires and a question if foreign hires should
be included in the appropriate bargaining unit. . The issue
became a dead lock.
5. On June 10, 1996 Trajano favoured the school and not
the employee, they filed a motion for reconsideration and
was denied by quisumbing and now seeking relief in this
court.
6. The petioner claims the point of hire classification
employed and the higher saries to foreign hire by the
school is discriminatory to the filipinos.
7. The school defended that there are non filipinos who are
considered as local hire and received the same benefit.
8. The acting secretary upheld - the principle equal pay for
equal work doesnt apply in the present case, because
nthe school requires hiring foreign personel to deal with
different nationalities and cultures among studen
population. As such the school have to be aware of teh
system of salaries and benefit accorded to foreign hires.
In addition they have limited employment contract and to
apply parity there will be just compensation on wages,
benefits and conditions of employment which is in the
contract.
9. The CBA- has distiguished the LRS and OSRS and the
foreign hires has 25% more salary and other benefits on
teh perusal of the parties 1992-1995. As such the parties
 has recognize the difference of the two type of employee.
That, the union canot invoke the equal protection clause
because parity only applies only on the same class on
which it is clear that there are two substantial
classification.
10. We cannot agree( i think from the union) and mentions
many principles of laws in relation to discrimination and
rights to equity and justice.
11. Constitution provides that labor is entitled to a humane
condition of work. The state also have to provide and
endure equal work . In addition the constitution also
directs the state to promote equality of employment
oppurtunities for all. the toppurtunities regardless of SRC
12. Ruling: persons who work with substantially equa
qualifications, skill, effort and responsibility, under similar
conditions, should be paid similar salaries under the legal
truism of equal pay for equal work. If the employer pays
one employee less that the rest the employer needs to
explain why the employee is treated unfairly. As such the
employer failed to prove that foreign hires performs more
than the local hires. Both group perform under similar
working conditions.
13. Salary means a recompense for services performes (black
law dictionary) the PH legal encyclopedia states that
salary is the consideration paid at regular intervals for
rendering of services. Salary should not be used as
enticements to the prejudice of local hires. The
persormance of local hires and foreign hires are the same
and they ought to get the same salary. As such the
dislocation factor and the limited tenure cannot serve as
valid bases for the distinction of the salary rates, because
it is compensated by benefits accorded to them which are
not enjoyed by the local hires.
14. The constitution enjoins the state to protect the rights of
workers and promote thier welfare, to afford labor
protection. The state therefore has the right and duty to
regulate relations between labor and capital.
15. Contracts containing stipulations that are contrary to the
public policy, courts will not hesitate to strike down this
stipulations. As such the court in the point of hire
classification employed by school as teh basis of salry
rates of the local hires and foreign hires to be invalid. The
higher salaries of the foreign hires contravenes public
policy.
16. Bargaining unit of the foreign hires is different form local
hires. The factors determining the appropriate collective
bargaining units are; 1. The will of employees ( globe
doctrine) 2. Substantial mutual interest rule 3. Prior
collective bargaining history 4 similirity of employment
status. The bargaining history of the school shows that
foreign hires are always treated separately.
17. WHEREFORE, the petition is GIVEN DUE COURSE. The
petition is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The Orders of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment dated June 10, 1996
and March 19, 1997, are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE insofar as they uphold the practice of respondent
School of according foreign-hires higher salaries than
local-hires.