[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Airline Labor Dispute Ruling

Saudi Arabia Airlines (Saudia) terminated flight attendants after denying their maternity leave requests. The attendants filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal, which the labor courts agreed with. Saudia argued the labor courts lacked jurisdiction and Saudi law applied per the employment contracts. However, the court found Saudia's Philippine office established jurisdiction. It also found the attendants resigned under threat of firing, making the termination a constructive illegal dismissal under Philippine law. The court did not hold Saudia's representative personally liable as no bad faith was shown.

Uploaded by

Jose Ramon Ampil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
2K views1 page

Airline Labor Dispute Ruling

Saudi Arabia Airlines (Saudia) terminated flight attendants after denying their maternity leave requests. The attendants filed a complaint claiming illegal dismissal, which the labor courts agreed with. Saudia argued the labor courts lacked jurisdiction and Saudi law applied per the employment contracts. However, the court found Saudia's Philippine office established jurisdiction. It also found the attendants resigned under threat of firing, making the termination a constructive illegal dismissal under Philippine law. The court did not hold Saudia's representative personally liable as no bad faith was shown.

Uploaded by

Jose Ramon Ampil
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
You are on page 1/ 1

SAUDIA v.

REBESENCIO
G.R. No. 198587
January 14, 2015

FACTS:
1. Petitioner Saudi Arabia Airlines (Saudia) is a foreign corportion with a Philippine office
in Manila.
2. Respondents were hired by Saudia as flight attendants until they resigned in 2006, after
having their maternity leaves disapproved.
3. Petitioner based its disapproval on its Unified Employment Contract, which voids
pregnant attendants’ employment.
4. On November 8, 2007, respondents filed a complaint against petitioner for illegal
dismissal before the NLRC.
5. Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, which the NLRC then reversed.
6. On September 13, 2011, CA denied petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the Labor Arbiter and NLRC may exercise jurisdiction and apply Philippine law
in the case.
2. Whether respondents were illegally terminated, and did not voluntarily resign.
3. Whether Brenda Betia may be held personally liable with Saudi Arabian Airlines.

HELD:
1. YES.
a. Petitioner claims that summons were not served on it, but on “Saudia Manila”.
However, by its own admission, “Saudia Manila” is really the company’s
Philippine office. Thus, under Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 7042, it is a company
doing business in the Philippines, and subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine
courts.
b. Petitioner calls into operation forum non conveniens, citing that respondents’
contracts pertain to Saudi law. However, given the above condition and Philippine
courts’ position, there is no reason for the case to be ceded to a foreign tribunal.

2. YES.
In Bilbao v. Saudi Arabian Airlines, the court defined voluntary resignation as a formal and
intentional relinquishment of office. However, in the instant case, petitioners resigned under
threat of firing and were made to sign on letterheads marked “RESIGNATION”. This made
the act constructive dismissal, which is tantamount to illegal termination.

3. NO.
Since members of a corporation have a distinct personality from the former, they are only
liable with it if they acted in bad faith or malice. Because there is no proof that Betia acted in
bad faith, she is not solidarily liable with Saudia.

You might also like