PATRICIA HALAGUEÑA, MA. ANGELITA L. PULIDO, MA. TERESITA P.
SANTIAGO,
MARIANNE V. KATINDIG, BERNADETTA A. CABALQUINTO, LORNA B. TUGAS, MARY
CHRISTINE A. VILLARETE, CYNTHIA A. STEHMEIER, ROSE ANA G. VICTA, NOEMI R.
CRESENCIO and other female flight attendants of PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, petitioners, vs.
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., respondent.
G.R. No. 243259 | January 10, 2023 | LEONEN, J.
DOCTRINE
(Article 1700 of the Civil Code) a CBA must be construed liberally, and the courts must give due
consideration to "the context in which it is negotiated and purpose which it is intended to serve."
Any doubts should be resolved in favor of labor and in favor of the retiree to achieve its
humanitarian purposes.
(Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. OPLE) . It should not be taken to mean that
retirement provisions agreed upon in the CBA are absolutely beyond the ambit of judicial review
and nullification. A CBA, as a labor contract, is not merely contractual in nature but impressed
with public interest. If the retirement provisions in the CBA run contrary to law, public morals, or
public policy, such provisions may very well be voided.
In finding merit in the Petition, we emphasize that the fundamental equality of women and men
before the law is enshrined and guaranteed by the Constitution, statutes, and international
convention where the Philippines is a signatory.
a. Article 2, Sec. 14 (State Principles)
b. Article 3, Sec. 1 (Bill of Rights)
c. Article 13, Sec. 14 (Labor)
FACTS
On July 11, 2001, PAL and FASAP entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) incorporating
the terms and conditions of employment of cabin attendants for the years 2000 to 2005.
On July 29, 2004, Halagueña, et al. filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for Issuance of
Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction with the Regional Trial Court of Makati
City, Branch 147, enjoining PAL from enforcing Section 144 (A) of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA.
They sought the nullity of Section 144 (A) for discriminating against female flight attendants in violation
of the Constitution, the Labor Code, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women.
PAL initially claimed that the Regional Trial Court lacked jurisdiction as the petition is a labor case
disguised as a special civil action. However, the Regional Trial Court dismissed this claim.
In an August 31, 2005 Decision, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of PAL and declared that the trial
court had no jurisdiction over the petition for declaratory relief, consequently annulling and setting aside
all the proceedings, orders, and processes before it. 18 In a March 7, 2007 Resolution, the Court of
Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Halagueña, et al. prompting them to file an appeal
with the Supreme Court, and causing the case before the trial court to be archived.
Accordingly, Halagueña, et al. moved for the revival of the archived case before the trial court and for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. However, the trial court held in abeyance any further
proceedings until the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 172013 attained finality. After PAL's
Motion for Reconsideration was denied with finality, the trial court, in a February 18, 2010 Order,
granted Halagueña, et al.'s Motion to Revive with Urgent Motion for the Issuance of the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.
RTC DECISION
The trial court granted the petition for declaratory relief and declared Section 144 (A) of the PAL-
FASAP 2000-2005 CBA null and void for being discriminatory. Judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of petitioners.
CA DECISION
The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court, and ruled in
favor of PAL. The Decision dated 22 May 2015 and Resolution dated 9 October 2015 of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 59 in Civil Case No. 04-886 are hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. A new one is hereby issued declaring Section 144 of the PAL-FASAP 2000-
2005 CBA provision VALID and BINDING. Accordingly, the Petition for Declaratory Relief is
DISMISSED.
ISSUES
whether Section 144 (A) of the 2000-2005 PAL-FASAP CBA is discriminatory against women, and thus
void for being contrary to the Constitution, laws, and international conventions.
RULING
The petitioners' act of vigorously pursuing this case all the way up to this Court twice for almost eighteen
years completely negates the claim that they agree to retire under the compulsory retirement provision of
the CBA. Even if embodied in the CBA, petitioners had no choice but to assent to the contested
retirement provision, considering that Article II, Section 3 of the CBA provides that "the Company will
not hire [a] Cabin Attendant without their being completely subject to the terms of th[e] Agreement." 100
This was assented to by their male-denominated union representatives, who failed to protect their interests
and even testified against them. 101 Thus, despite the incorporation of the retirement provision in the
CBA and petitioners' receipt of retirement benefits, they cannot be estopped from questioning the validity
of their retirement, since economic necessity and the prospect of unemployment compelled the employees
to accept the benefits offered them.
ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review is GRANTED. The May 31, 2018 Decision and November 19,
2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107085 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The May 22, 2015 Decision and October 9, 2015 Resolution of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,
Branch 59, in Civil Case No. 04-886, are AFFIRMED and REINSTATED.
