Saudi Arabia Airlines and Brenda Betia v.

Ma. Jopette Rebesencio, et al.

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.

FACTS:

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.

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.

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, this shall render her employment contract as void and she will be
terminated due to lack of medical fitness. “

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.

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.

ISSUE:
WON the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC has jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian Airlines and apply
Philippine jurisdiction over the dispute?
HELD:

YES. Summons were validly served on Saudia and jurisdiction over it validly acquired.

RATIO:
No doubt that the pleadings were served to Petitioner Airlines through their counsel,
however they claim that the NLRC and Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction since summons
were served to Saudi Airlines Manila and not to them, Saudi Airlines Jeddah. Saudi Airlines
Manila was neither a party to the Cabin attendant contracts nor funded the Respondents,
and it was to Saudi Jeddah that they filed their resignations. Court ruled however that b y its
own admission, Saudia, while a foreign corporation, has a Philippine office, and that under
the Foreign Investments act of 1991, they are a foreign corporation doing business in the
PH and therefore are subject to Philippine jurisdiction.
Petitioner Airlines also asserts that the Cabin Attendant Contracts require the application of
the laws of Saudi Arabia rather than those of the Philippines. It claims that the 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

Furthermore, contracts relating to labor and employment are impressed with public
interest. Article 1700 of the Civil Code provides that "[t]he relation between capital and
labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor
contracts must yield to the common good.

Pakistan Airlines Ruling: relationship is much affected with public interest and that the
otherwise applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the
parties agreeing upon some other law to govern their relationship.

As the present dispute relates to (what the respondents allege to be) the illegal termination
of respondents' employment, this case is immutably a matter of public interest and public
policy. Consistent with clear pronouncements in law and jurisprudence, Philippine laws
properly find application in and govern this case.
DISPOSITIVE:

Appealed Decision is Affirmed, case is remanded for a detailed computation of the amount to
be paid by Saudi Airlines