Dismissal by Reason of Pregnancy in the Airline Industry - Valid or Not?

Being a flight attendant in an international airline company has its perks. Just imagine, your work office is high up in the air at 41,000 feet above ground. But just like any work place, discrimination is still present in this occupation. In a previous post, we tackled a labor issue concerning the dismissal of an employee by reason of pregnancy. This 2015 case tackles on discrimination of women in the airline industry.

The Facts of the Case.

In this case, Respondents (complainants before the Labor Arbiter) were recruited and hired by Saudia as Temporary Flight Attendants with the accreditation and approval of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. After undergoing seminars required by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration for deployment overseas, as well as training modules offered by Saudia (e.g., initial flight attendant/training course and transition training), and after working as Temporary Flight Attendants, respondents became Permanent Flight Attendants. They then entered into Cabin Attendant contracts with Saudia: Ma. Jopette M. Rebesencio (Ma. Jopette) on May 16, 1990; Montassah B. Sacar-Adiong (Montassah) and Rouen Ruth A. Cristobal (Rouen Ruth) on May 22, 1993; and Loraine Schneider-Cruz (Loraine) on August 27, 1995.

Respondents continued their employment with Saudia until they were separated from service on various dates in 2006. Respondents contended that the termination of their employment was illegal. They alleged that the termination was made solely because they were pregnant.

Saudia anchored its disapproval of respondents’ maternity leaves and demand for their resignation on its “Unified Employment Contract for Female Cabin Attendants” (Unified Contract). Under the Unified Contract, the employment of a Flight Attendant who becomes pregnant is rendered void. It provides:

(H) Due to the essential nature of the Air Hostess functions to be physically fit on board to provide various services required in normal or emergency cases on both domestic/international flights beside her role in maintaining continuous safety and security of passengers, and since she will not be able to maintain the required medical fitness while at work in case of pregnancy, accordingly, 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.(Emphasis supplied)

On November 8, 2007, respondents filed a Complaint against Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal and for underpayment of salary, overtime pay, premium pay for holiday, rest day, premium, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, separation pay, night shift differentials, medical expense reimbursements, retirement benefits, illegal deduction, lay-over expense and allowances, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

The issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether or not there was an illegal dismissal of the respondents?

Image from: www.aviationfigure.com

The Supreme Court's Decision.

Yes, the respondents were illegally dismissed.

The initial issue here was whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the case. Petitioner Saudia states that the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction and that the law that should be applied in the instant case is Saudi Arabia law. The Court stated that this is incorrect. The Court has jurisdiction in this case.

The Court stated in 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, we 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.

 xxx

So informed and animated, we emphasize the glaringly discriminatory nature of Saudia’s policy. 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.

We 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 to us that any individual, regardless of gender, may be subject to exigencies that limit the performance of functions. However, we 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. In their Comment, respondents write:

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 [sic] 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.)

The Court then decided: 

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 June 16, 2011 Decision and the September 13, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP. No. 113006 are hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects. 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 Pl00,000.00 per respondent;

(4) Exemplary damages in th~ amount of P200,000.00 per

respondent; and

(5) Attorney's fees equivalent to 10% of the total award. Interest of 6% per annum shall likewise be imposed on the total judgment award from the finality of this Decision until full satisfaction thereof.

This. case is REMANDED. to the Labor Arbiter to make a detailed computation of the amounts due to respondents which petitioner Saudi Arabian Airlines should pay without delay.

Read the full case here:
Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) and Brenda J. Betia vs. Ma. Jopette M. Rebesencio Montassah B. Sacar-Adiong, et al.