Case Summary (G.R. No. 243259)
Key Dates
• July 11, 2001 – PAL and FASAP sign 2000–2005 CBA incorporating Section 144(A).
• July 29, 2004 – Petition for declaratory relief filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 147, Makati City.
• May 22, 2015 – RTC rules Section 144(A) null and void.
• May 31, 2018 – Court of Appeals (CA) reverses RTC, upholding Section 144(A).
• January 10, 2023 – Supreme Court issues final decision.
Section 144(A) of the CBA
For cabin attendants hired before November 22, 1996: compulsory retirement at age 55 for females and age 60 for males, with specified retirement pay formulas.
Procedural History
- RTC grants injunctive relief (2004), ultimately declares Section 144(A) discriminatory and void (2015).
- CA reverses RTC on appeal (May 31, 2018), holds the provision valid and binding.
- Petitioners file Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court (January 11, 2019).
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 14 (active equality of women and men); Article III, Section 1 (equal protection); Article XIII, Sections 3 and 14 (labor and working women’s protection).
• Labor Code, Article 133 (prohibition of sex discrimination in terms and conditions of employment); Article 302 (retirement plans).
• Civil Code, Articles 1306 and 1409 (contracts contrary to law or public policy are void).
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
• Magna Carta of Women (Republic Act No. 9710).
Petitioners’ Contentions
• Section 144(A) discriminates on the mere basis of sex by compelling female flight attendants to retire five years earlier than male counterparts.
• No factual or occupational basis exists to justify a lower retirement age for women.
• Fundamental equality and anti‐discrimination guarantees cannot be bargained away by union consent.
Respondent’s Contentions
• Section 144(A) resulted from collective bargaining and was ratified by FASAP.
• Female cabin crew constitute a special class requiring higher safety standards; a lower retirement age is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).
• Historic practice and voluntary union assent create a presumption of validity.
Constitutional and Statutory Equality Guarantees
The 1987 Constitution mandates an active role for the State to ensure fundamental equality of women and men, and prohibits discrimination in employment terms on account of sex. Article 133 of the Labor Code expressly outlaws lesser compensation or unfavorable conditions for women performing work of equal value. CEDAW and the Magna Carta of Women reinforce these commitments and require elimination of practices based on stereotypes of either sex’s capabilities.
Absence of Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
PAL failed to present substantial evidence that women ages 55–59 lack the strength, agility, or stamina required of cabin attendants. The mere “obvious biological difference” between sexes does not establish that female flight attendants approaching age 55 pose any greater risk to passenger safety than male attendants up to age 60. Conjecture, speculation, or gender stereotypes cannot satisfy the reasonable necessity standard for a BFOQ.
Public Policy and Contractual Review
Labor contracts, including CBAs, are “impressed with public int
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 243259)
Facts
- Petitioners are female flight attendants of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) and members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), the sole and exclusive bargaining representative of PAL cabin crew hired before 22 November 1996.
- On 11 July 2001, PAL and FASAP executed the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which incorporated Section 144(A) providing for compulsory retirement of cabin attendants at age 55 for females and age 60 for males.
- On 29 July 2004, petitioners filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 147, Makati City, seeking nullification of Section 144(A) as discriminatory under the Constitution, Labor Code, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Procedural History
- The RTC upheld its jurisdiction, issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on 10 August 2004, and on 27 September 2004 granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining PAL from enforcing Section 144(A).
- The Court of Appeals (CA) on 31 August 2005 annulled all RTC proceedings for lack of jurisdiction. Its denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was promulgated on 7 March 2007.
- In G.R. No. 172013 (2 October 2009), the Supreme Court Third Division reversed the CA, held the RTC had jurisdiction, and remanded the case to Branch 147.
- Upon finality of that decision, the RTC Branch 147 revived the case, granted preliminary injunction on 30 July 2010, and in its 22 May 2015 Decision declared Section 144(A) null and void as discriminatory, awarded Php 100,000 each plus Php 200,000 attorneys’ fees. Its 9 October 2015 Resolution denied PAL’s motion for reconsideration.
- On appeal, the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 107085 issued its 31 May 2018 Decision reversing the RTC, upheld Section 144(A) as valid and binding, and dismissed the petition. Its 19 November 2018 Resolution denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- Petitioners filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on 11 January 2019 before the Supreme Court En Banc.
Issue
- Whether Section 144(A) of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA is discriminatory against women, and therefore void for being contrary to the Constitution, the Labor Code, international conventions, and public policy.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Constitution
• Article II, Section 14 – mandates the State to ensure fundamental equa