Facts:
The case originated from the enforcement of a stipulation in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) and the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), which mandated a different compulsory retirement age for male and female cabin attendants — 60 years old for males and 55 years old for females. Asserting that such a provision discriminates against female flight attendants, Patricia Halagueña and several other female flight attendants of PAL filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 147. They sought to enjoin PAL from enforcing the said provision and to nullify it for violating the Constitution, the Labor Code, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
PAL contested the trial court’s jurisdiction, asserting the case was essentially a labor dispute, but the trial court upheld its jurisdiction. While the trial court initially issued a temporary restraining order and later a writ of preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeals, upon PAL’s certiorari petition, ruled the trial court had no jurisdiction over the matter, which prompted the flight attendants to elevate the issue to the Supreme Court.
In 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court’s jurisdiction and directing it to proceed with the case. Upon remand, the Regional Trial Court, after thorough proceedings, declared the contested CBA provision null and void for being discriminatory against female flight attendants. PAL’s appeal to the Court of Appeals resulted in a reversal of the trial court’s decision, prompting the flight attendants to file a Petition for Review on Certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether the provision in the CBA setting different compulsory retirement ages for male and female cabin attendants is discriminatory against women and thus contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
2. Whether the said CBA provision is a valid exercise of the parties’ autonomy in contracting.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the CBA provision setting a different compulsory retirement age for female cabin attendants is discriminatory and void for being contrary to the Constitution, laws, international conventions, and public policy. The Court highlighted that retirement policies must be consistent with the principle of gender equality and must not arbitrarily discriminate against employees on the basis of sex. Any distinction based solely on gender that affects an employee’s terms and conditions of employment, including retirement age, is unjustified and illegal unless it pertains to a bona fide occupational qualification that is reasonably necessary to the business’s normal operations — a criteria the CBA provision failed to meet.
Doctrine:
The case reiterated the doctrine that stipulations in contracts, including CBAs, that are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy are void. It also underscored the constitutional and statutory mandates promoting gender equality and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in employment practices.
Class Notes:
– The legal framework regarding retirement policies must align with the principles of equality and non-discrimination, especially concerning gender.
– Parties to a CBA cannot include provisions that contravene laws and regulations aimed at protecting workers’ rights and promoting gender equality.
– Autonomy in contract does not extend to allowing parties to agree on terms that violate public policy, including discrimination based on gender.
Historical Background:
This case reflects the ongoing struggle to eliminate gender discrimination in the workplace and emphasizes the judiciary’s role in interpreting and applying laws that promote gender equality and protect workers’ rights against discriminatory employment practices. It highlights the dynamic between labor rights, gender equality, and contractual autonomy within the Philippine legal framework.
Leave a Reply