The Supreme Court affirmed that terminating a flight attendant’s employment solely due to pregnancy is illegal and discriminatory under Philippine law. This decision reinforces the constitutional guarantee of equality and protects women from workplace discrimination based on their gender. This case underscores that Philippine laws and policies protect pregnant women from discriminatory employment practices, even when contracts stipulate otherwise.

Saudia’s High-Flying Discrimination: Can Pregnancy Ground a Flight Attendant’s Career?

This case revolves around the termination of employment of several female flight attendants by Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) after they became pregnant. The flight attendants, Ma. Jopette M. Rebesencio, Montassah B. Sacar-Adiong, Rouen Ruth A. Cristobal, and Loraine S. Schneider-Cruz, were hired in the Philippines and based in Manila. After informing Saudia of their pregnancies and applying for maternity leaves, their leaves were initially approved but later disapproved by Saudia’s management in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The airline then required them to resign, citing its “Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin Attendants,” which stated that pregnancy renders a flight attendant’s employment contract void due to a lack of medical fitness. The flight attendants filed complaints for illegal dismissal, leading to a legal battle that eventually reached the Supreme Court.

One of the main contentions of Saudia was that Philippine courts lacked jurisdiction over the case due to the principle of forum non conveniens, arguing that Saudi Arabian law should apply based on the employment contracts. However, the Supreme Court firmly rejected this argument, asserting that Philippine labor laws and public policy considerations took precedence. The court emphasized that the Philippines has a strong public policy against discrimination, particularly against women, as enshrined in the Constitution and international treaties like the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

The court referenced Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that the State shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. Building on this principle, the Court stated:

The constitutional exhortation to ensure fundamental equality, as illumined by its enabling law, the CEDAW, must inform and animate all the actions of all personalities acting on behalf of the State. It is, therefore, the bounden duty of this court, in rendering judgment on the disputes brought before it, to ensure that no discrimination is heaped upon women on the mere basis of their being women. This is a point so basic and central that all our discussions and pronouncements — regardless of whatever averments there may be of foreign law — must proceed from this premise.

Moreover, the court highlighted that contracts relating to labor and employment are imbued with public interest, as stated in Article 1700 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court referenced this when it said:

The relation between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good.

Because of this, Philippine laws must be applied to protect employees from being disadvantaged. The court found that Saudia’s policy of terminating pregnant flight attendants was discriminatory and violated Philippine public policy.

The Supreme Court also addressed Saudia’s argument regarding forum non conveniens. It clarified that while contractual choice of law provisions are generally respected, they cannot override the application of Philippine laws, especially when public policy is at stake. The court stated that forum non conveniens should not be used to circumvent Philippine laws designed to protect employees. In this case, the court found no compelling reason to cede jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal, especially since the employees were based in the Philippines and the discriminatory act occurred within the country.

In analyzing whether the respondents voluntarily resigned, the Supreme Court applied the principle that resignation must be a voluntary act. It found that the flight attendants were constructively dismissed, meaning their continued employment was rendered impossible due to the coercive actions of Saudia. The airline’s threat of termination and forfeiture of benefits left the employees with no real choice but to resign. The court emphasized that the intent to relinquish employment must be clear and voluntary, which was not the case here. The Court noted in Bilbao v. Saudi Arabian Airlines,:

As the intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of relinquishment, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether he or she, in fact, intended, to sever his or her employment.

The Supreme Court’s decision included several important remedies for the illegally dismissed flight attendants. These include full backwages and benefits from the time of termination until the finality of the decision, separation pay, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. The awards of moral and exemplary damages were particularly significant, as they underscored the court’s condemnation of Saudia’s discriminatory practices. The court found that the airline acted in bad faith and in a manner contrary to public policy by terminating the employees solely because of their pregnancy.

However, the court also clarified that individual corporate officers, like Brenda J. Betia, could only be held solidarity liable with the corporation if they acted in bad faith or with malice. Since the respondents failed to provide proof of this malice, Betia was not held solidarity liable with Saudia. This aspect of the decision highlights the importance of establishing individual culpability when seeking to hold corporate officers personally liable for labor violations.

In sum, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case sends a strong message against workplace discrimination based on gender and affirms the Philippines’ commitment to protecting women’s rights. It clarifies the application of forum non conveniens and the principle of autonomy of contracts in the context of labor disputes involving foreign employers and Filipino employees. The ruling serves as a reminder that Philippine laws and policies aimed at promoting equality and protecting vulnerable employees will be vigorously enforced, even when faced with contractual stipulations or arguments invoking foreign law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) illegally dismissed its female flight attendants for being pregnant, and whether Philippine labor laws should apply in this situation.
What is forum non conveniens?	Forum non conveniens is a legal doctrine where a court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction if it believes that another court or forum is better suited to hear the case, usually because it is more convenient for the parties and witnesses, or because foreign law applies.
Why did the Supreme Court rule that Philippine law applied?	The Supreme Court ruled that Philippine law applied because the case involved public policy considerations, specifically the protection of women’s rights and the prohibition of discrimination based on gender, which are enshrined in the Philippine Constitution and international treaties.
What is constructive dismissal?	Constructive dismissal occurs when an employer’s actions make continued employment impossible, unreasonable, or unlikely for the employee, often involving demotion, reduction in pay, or hostile working conditions, effectively forcing the employee to resign.
What remedies did the Supreme Court grant to the flight attendants?	The Supreme Court granted the flight attendants full backwages and benefits, separation pay, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, recognizing the illegal and discriminatory nature of their dismissal.
Can corporate officers be held personally liable for illegal dismissal?	Corporate officers can be held personally liable for illegal dismissal if they acted in bad faith or with malice. However, in this case, one officer was not held liable because there was no proof of malice.
What does the CEDAW treaty have to do with this case?	The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) reinforces the Philippines’ commitment to gender equality and informed the Court’s decision, highlighting the discriminatory nature of Saudia’s policy.
What is the significance of this ruling?	The ruling reinforces that Philippine laws protect pregnant women from discriminatory employment practices and that contractual stipulations or arguments invoking foreign law cannot override these protections when public policy is at stake.

This decision serves as a landmark victory for women’s rights in the workplace, reinforcing the Philippines’ commitment to eliminating gender discrimination. It underscores that Philippine courts will not hesitate to apply domestic laws and policies to protect employees, even in cases involving foreign employers and contracts stipulating foreign law.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Rebesencio, G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015