02 Saudia v.

Rebesencio
G.R. No. 198587 (2015)
Leonen, J.

Subject Matter: Equality of men and women before the law

Summary: Respondents were asked to resign from being flight attendants for Saudia Airlines because they
got pregnant. The basis of Saudia was the “Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin Attendants”
which provides that the employment of a Flight Attendant who becomes pregnant is rendered void. The
respondents filed a case and the NLRC, CA, and SC favored the respondents. Saudia's policy entails the
termination of employment of flight attendants who become pregnant which excludes from and restricts
employment based on no other consideration but sex.

Doctrines:

Article II Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building,
and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.
Parties:

Petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) and Brenda J. Betia

Respondent Ma. Jopette M. Rebesencio, Montassah B. Sacar-Adiong, Rouen Ruth A.
Cristobal and Loraine S. Schneider-Cruz

Facts:

 Respondents are flight attendants for Saudi Arabian Airlines. They got pregnant and later, filed their
maternity leaves. Saudia approved it at first but was later reversed as the main office in Jeddah did not
approve.
 Saudia required respondents to file their resignation letters and if they don’t resign, Saudia would
terminate them all the same. The threat of termination entailed the loss of benefits, such as separation
pay and ticket discount entitlements.
 Saudia anchored its disapproval of respondents' maternity leaves and demand for their resignation on
its "Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin Attendants" (effectivity: September 23, 2006).
Under the Unified Contract, the employment of a Flight Attendant who becomes pregnant is rendered
void as she is not fit to provide continuous safety and security of passengers. However, the
respondents filed their maternity leaves before the unified contract took effect.
 Respondents filed on November 8, 2007 a Complaint against Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal
and for underpayment. The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.
Respondent’s appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission's (NLRC’s) Sixth Division which
reversed the ruling.
 Petitioners appealed to the CA which got denied, but the orders of the NLRC were modified.
 The rule followed by most legal systems is that the intrinsic validity of a contract must be governed by
the lex contractus or "proper law of the contract." This is the law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties
(the lex loci voluntatis) or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly (the lex loci
intentionis).
 Forum non conveniens: "a court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction
where it is not the most 'convenient' or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking
remedies elsewhere.

Issues:

1. WON the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission may exercise jurisdiction
over Saudi Arabian Airlines and apply Philippine law in adjudicating the present dispute. YES.
2. WON respondents were illegally terminated. YES.
3. WON Petitioner Brenda J. Betia may be held liable. NO.

Ratio:

Yes – NLRC may exercise jurisdiction over the case.

 There is no basis for concluding that the case can be more conveniently tried elsewhere. All 4
respondents are Filipino citizens.
 It cannot be said that the local judicial machinery is inadequate for effectuating the right sought
to be maintained. Summons was properly served on Saudia and jurisdiction over its person was
validly acquired.

Yes. – The respondents were illegally terminated.

 Under Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[t]he State... shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men." Contrasted with Article II, Section 1 of
the 1987 Constitution's statement that "[n]o person shall ... be denied the equal protection of the
laws," Article II, Section 14 exhorts the State to "ensure." This does not only mean that the
Philippines shall not countenance nor lend legal recognition and approbation to measures that
discriminate on the basis of one's being male or female. It imposes an obligation to actively engage
in securing the fundamental equality of men and women.
 Moreover, The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW), signed and ratified by the Philippines on July 15, 1980, and on August 5, 1981,
respectively, is part of the law of the land. In CEDAW, discrimination against women is defined
as:

“any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or
purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women,
irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights
and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”

 As applied in the case, Saudia's policy entails the termination of employment of flight attendants
who become pregnant. At the risk of stating the obvious, pregnancy is an occurrence that pertains
specifically to women. Saudia's policy excludes from and restricts employment based on no other
consideration but sex.
 In termination cases, the burden of proving just or valid cause for dismissing an employee rests
on the employer." Voluntariness of respondents' departure from Saudia is non sequitur (does not
follow the premises and facts i.e. respondents appealed the rejection of their maternity leave)

No. – Brenda J. Betia is not liable.

  A corporation has a personality separate and distinct from those of the persons composing it.
 Respondents have not produced proof to show that Brenda J. Betia acted in bad faith or with
malice as regards their termination.

Dispositive WHEREFORE, with the MODIFICATIONS that first, petitioner Brenda J. Betia is not solidarily
liable with petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines, and second, that petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines is liable for
moral and exemplary damages. The CA is hereby AFFIRMED in all other aspects. Accordingly, petitioner
Saudi Arabian Airlines is ordered to pay respondents:
(1) Full backwages and all other benefits computed from the respective dates in which each of the
respondents were illegally terminated until the finality of this Decision;
(2) Separation pay computed from the respective dates in which each of the respondents commenced
employment until the finality of this Decision at the rate of one (1) month’s salary for every year of
service, with a fraction of a year of at least six (6) months being counted as one (1) whole year;
(3) Moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00 per respondent;
(4) Exemplary damages in the amount of P200,000.00 per respondent; and
(5) Attorney’s fees equivalent to 10% of the total award.