SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES V REBESENCIOG.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015

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.

ISSUE

1. Whether or not the respondents voluntarily resigned or were illegally terminated.

2. Whether or not the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the case

RATIO

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.

FALLO

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 the 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.