FACTS:
Petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) is a foreign corporation established
and existing under the laws of Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Respondents
were recruited and hired by Saudia as Flight Attendants with the accreditation
and approval of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
Respondents continued their employment with Saudia until they were separated
from service on various dates in 2006. The respondents contended that the
termination of their employment was illegal.
They alleged that the termination was made solely because
they were pregnant. As respondents alleged, they had informed Saudia of their
respective pregnancies and had gone through the necessary procedures to process
their maternity leaves. Initially, Saudia had given its approval but later on
informed respondents that its management in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia had
disapproved their maternity leaves. In addition, it required respondents to
file their resignation letters. Respondents were told that if they did not
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. The respondents were required to report to the office one month
into their maternity leave.
Saudia anchored its disapproval of respondents' maternity
leaves and demand for their resignation on its "Unified Employment
Contract for Female Cabin Attendants" (Unified Contract) which provides
that if the Air Hostess becomes pregnant at any time during the term of this
contract, this shall render her employment contract as void and she will be
terminated due to lack of medical fitness. The respondents averred that the
Unified Contract took effect after the approval of their maternity leaves.
Rather than comply and tender resignation letters, respondents filed separate
appeal letters that were all rejected. Faced with the dilemma of resigning or
totally losing their benefits, respondents executed handwritten resignation
letters.
ISSUES: 1.
Whether or not the respondents voluntarily resigned or were illegally
terminated.
2. Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction
over the case.
HELD: 1. Yes,
the respondents were illegally dismissed. The petitioner Saudia themselves
stated that the Saudi law does not allow the termination of employment of women
who take maternity leaves Under the Labor Laws of Saudi Arabia and the
Philippines, it is illegal and unlawful to terminate the employment of any
woman by virtue of pregnancy. The law in Saudi Arabia is even more harsh and
strict in that no employer can terminate the employment of a female worker or
give her a warning of the same while on Maternity Leave, the specific provision
of Saudi Labor Laws on the matter is hereto quoted as follows: “An employer may
not terminate the employment of a female worker or give her a warning of the
same while on maternity leave.” (Article 155, Labor Law of the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, Royal Decree No. M/51.)
2. Yes, the Philippine court has jurisdiction over the
case. Saudia asserts that stipulations set in the Cabin Attendant contracts
require the application of the laws of Saudi Arabia. It insists that the need
to comply with these stipulations calls into operation the doctrine of forum
non conveniens and, in turn, makes it necessary for Philippine tribunals to
refrain from exercising jurisdiction. Forum non conveniens, like the rules of
forum shopping, litis pendentia, and res judicata, is a means of addressing the
problem of parallel litigation. While the rules of forum shopping, litis
pendentia, and res judicata are designed to address the problem of parallel
litigation within a single jurisdiction, forum non conveniens is a means
devised to address parallel litigation arising in multiple jurisdictions. On
the matter of pleading forum non conveniens, the court state the rule, thus:
Forum non conveniens must not only be clearly pleaded as a ground for
dismissal; it must be pleaded as such at the earliest possible opportunity.
Otherwise, it shall be deemed waived.
It further stated: Forum non conveniens finds no
application and does not operate to divest Philippine tribunals of jurisdiction
and to require the application of foreign law. Saudia invokes forum non
conveniens to supposedly effectuate the stipulations of the
Cabin Attendant contracts that require the application of
the laws of Saudi Arabia.
As argued by respondents, 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 on the basis
of no other consideration but sex.
The court do not lose sight of the reality that pregnancy
does present physical limitations that may render difficult the performance of
functions associated with being a flight attendant. Nevertheless, 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. It is clear
that any individual, regardless of gender, may be subject to exigencies that
limit the performance of functions. However, they fail to appreciate how
pregnancy could be such an impairing occurrence that it leaves no other
recourse but the complete termination of the means through which a woman earns
a living. Oddly enough, the petitioner Saudia themselves stated that the Saudi
law does not allow the termination of employment of women who take maternity
leaves;
Consistent with lex loci intentionis, to the extent that it
is proper and practicable (i.e., “to make an intelligent decision”), Philippine
tribunals may apply the foreign law selected by the parties. In fact, (albeit
without meaning to make a pronouncement on the accuracy and reliability of
respondents’ citation) in this case, respondents themselves have made averments
as to the laws of Saudi Arabia.
Comments
Post a Comment