Case Summary (G.R. No. 198587)
Factual Background and Procedural History
Each respondent entered into a cabin attendant contract with Saudia between May 1990 and August 1995, worked until 2006, and filed for maternity leave after reporting pregnancies. Saudia’s Jeddah management initially approved but later disapproved their leaves and demanded resignation under threat of termination and loss of benefits. Facing forfeiture of separation pay and ticket privileges, they executed resignation letters on Saudia‐provided forms. In November 2007, they filed illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits claims before the Labor Arbiter. The Arbiter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and merit (Dec. 2008). The NLRC reversed (Nov. 2009), awarding backwages and separation pay. The Court of Appeals denied Saudia’s Rule 65 petition but modified the computation of backwages and separation pay (June 2011) and denied reconsideration (Sept. 2011). The petition for certiorari reached the Supreme Court (Jan. 2015).
Issues for Resolution
- Jurisdiction: May Philippine labor tribunals validly exercise jurisdiction over Saudia and apply Philippine law?
- Resignation vs. Illegal Termination: Did respondents resign voluntarily or were they constructively dismissed?
- Personal Liability: Can Brenda J. Betia be held solidarily liable with Saudia?
Jurisdiction and Applicability of Philippine Law
Saudia, doing business in the Philippines through its Makati office, is subject to Philippine jurisdiction under Section 3(d), R.A. 7042 (“Foreign Investments Act”). Service of summons on its Manila office sufficed. Choice-of-law clauses in the cabin attendant contract do not oust Philippine jurisdiction; forum non conveniens is distinct from contractual choice of law and requires factual showing of a parallel foreign suit and inadequate Philippine forum, which Saudia failed to plead or prove. Under the 1987 Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 1: equal protection) and settled jurisprudence (e.g., Bank of America v. CA), Philippine tribunals may assume jurisdiction, apply domestic or foreign law (lex loci intentionis), and enforce their judgments.
Contract Autonomy, Choice of Law, and Forum Non Conveniens
Article 1306, Civil Code, upholds parties’ autonomy to select governing law, provided no conflict with public policy. Forum non conveniens, a discretionary doctrine, applies when a foreign forum is clearly more appropriate, but requires proof of an existing foreign proceeding, adequacy of that forum, and a balance of private and public interests. Here, respondents have no foreign suit, all material events occurred in the Philippines, and Philippine tribunals are fully competent to decide.
Constitutional and Public Policy Constraints on Discrimination
The 1987 Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 14) mandates the State to ensure equality of women and men. The Philippines is a party to CEDAW, reinforcing that sex‐based distinctions impair fundamental freedoms. Under Article 1700, Civil Code, labor contracts are heavily impressed with public interest, and parties may not contract away rights protecting employees. Precedent (Pakistan Int’l Airlines v. Ople) bars application of foreign law to evince discriminatory employment terms. Saudia’s unified contract voiding employment upon pregnancy violates both constitutional equality and public policy.
Constructive Dismissal and Resignation under Duress
Voluntary resignation requires an employee’s free will; constructive dismissal exists when employment conditions are so unreasonable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Respondents repeatedly sought reconsideration, filed appeal letters, and only executed resignation upon threat of termination and loss of benefits. The pregnancy–termination policy coerced their depart
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 198587)
Facts of the Case
- Petitioners: Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia), a foreign corporation established under Royal Decree in Jeddah, KSA, with a Philippine office in Makati City; and Brenda J. Betia, Saudia’s Philippine-based representative.
- Respondents: Four Filipino flight attendants (initially temporary, later permanent) hired under POEA accreditation and employed under separate Cabin Attendant contracts (1990, 1993, 1995).
- Maternity-leave applications filed by respondents between August and September 2006 and initially approved locally.
- In late 2006, Saudia’s Jeddah management disapproved the maternity leaves, demanded resignations or threatened termination with forfeiture of separation benefits and ticket privileges.
- Respondents, facing loss of benefits, executed handwritten resignation letters on Saudia-supplied letterheads pre-typed with “RESIGNATION.”
- On November 8, 2007, respondents filed complaints for illegal dismissal and unpaid benefits before the Labor Arbiter.
Procedural History
- Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and merit (Dec. 12, 2008).
- NLRC Sixth Division reversed and awarded SR 614,001.24 plus 10% attorney’s fees (Nov. 19, 2009); denied motion for reconsideration (Feb. 11, 2010).
- Court of Appeals denied petition under Rule 65, modified separation pay and backwages computation but affirmed liability (June 16, 2011); denied reconsideration (Sept. 13, 2011).
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
Issues Presented
- Whether Philippine tribunals have jurisdiction over Saudia and may apply Philippine law.
- Whether respondents’ departures constituted voluntary resignation or illegal (constructive) dismissal.
- Whether petitioner Brenda J. Betia can be held personally (solidarily) liable for respondents’ dismissal.
Jurisdiction over Saudia
- Service: Summons served on Saudia’s Manila office through counsel, satisfying personal jurisdiction.
- “Doing Business” under RA 7042: Opening a local office constitutes continuous commercial dealings and subjects Saudia to Philip