Case Digest (G.R. No. 198587) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) and Brenda J. Betia v. Ma. Jopette M. Rebesencio et al. (G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015), petitioner Saudia, a foreign corporation with a Philippine office in Makati City, recruited respondents as Temporary Flight Attendants under POEA accreditation. After completing required training, respondents became Permanent Flight Attendants under individual Cabin Attendant contracts dated between 1990 and 1995. In 2006, each informed Saudia of her pregnancy and sought maternity leave, initially approved but later disapproved by Saudia’s Jeddah management. They were then pressured to submit resignation letters or face termination with forfeiture of benefits. Facing this ultimatum, respondents executed resignation letters on Saudia‐provided letterheads. On November 8, 2007, they filed illegal dismissal complaints before a Labor Arbiter, alleging forced resignation and underpayment of various benefits. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the case for lack of ju Case Digest (G.R. No. 198587) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Background
- Petitioners: Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia), foreign corporation with Philippine office, and Brenda J. Betia, its Manager of Crew Administration.
- Respondents: Ma. Jopette M. Rebesencio, Montassah B. Sacar-Adiong, Rouen Ruth A. Cristobal, Loraine S. Schneider-Cruz—Filipino flight attendants recruited by Saudia.
- Employment and Maternity Leave Dispute
- Respondents hired as Temporary Flight Attendants (1990–1995), later became Permanent with individual Cabin Attendant contracts.
- In 2006 each applied for maternity leave—initially approved locally, then disapproved by Saudia’s Jeddah head office under “Unified Employment Contract” voiding employment upon pregnancy.
- Respondents were told to resign or face termination with forfeiture of benefits; they filed multiple appeals, received contradictory calls of approval/disapproval, and ultimately executed resignation letters under duress.
- Labor Proceedings
- November 2007: respondents filed Complaint for illegal dismissal and underpayment of various benefits before the Labor Arbiter.
- Labor Arbiter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. NLRC Sixth Division reversed, finding illegal termination, awarding backwages and separation pay plus attorney’s fees.
- Court of Appeals denied Rule 65 petition, modified award computation for separation pay and backwages; petitioners’ motion for reconsideration likewise denied.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before the Supreme Court raising issues of jurisdiction, voluntariness of resignation, and personal liability of Betia.
Issues:
- Whether Philippine labor tribunals have jurisdiction over Saudia and may apply Philippine law in the dispute.
- Whether respondents voluntarily resigned or were illegally (constructively) dismissed.
- Whether Brenda J. Betia may be held solidarily liable for the illegal dismissal.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)