Saudi Arabia Airlines and Brenda Betia v.

Ma. Jopette Rebesencio, et al.

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
foreign corporation established and
existing under the Royal Decree No.
M/24 of Jeddah, who hired Respondents
as flight attendants. After undergoing
seminars required by the Philippine
Overseas Employment Administration
for deployment overseas, as well as
training modules offered by Saudia,
Respondents became Temporary and
then eventually Permanent Flight
Attendants; they entered into the
necessary Cabin Attendant Contracts
with Saudi.
2) Respondents were released from
service on separate dates in 2006;
claimed that such release was illegal
since the basis of termination of
contract was solely because they were
pregnant. They claim that they had
informed Saudia of their respective
pregnancies and had gone through the
necessary procedures to process their
maternity leaves and while initially,
Saudia had given its approval, they
ultimately reneged and rather required
them to file for resignation.
5)November 8,2007 - Respondents filed
a Complaint with the Labor Arbiter
against Saudia and its officers for illegal
dismissal and for underpayment, along
with moral and exemplary damages,
and attorney's fees. Petitioner Airlines
contests the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction,
as the contract’s points referred to
foreign law and that Respondents had
no cause of action since they already
voluntarily resigned.
6) Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed
the complaint, but on appeal the NLRC
reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision
and denied Petitioner Airlines’ Motion
for Reconsideration, hence the current
appeal.
RELEVANT ISSUE:
WON the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC
has jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian
Airlines and apply Philippine jurisdiction
over the dispute? YES. Summons
were validly served on Saudia and
jurisdiction over it validly acquired.

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.