GR 243259; (January, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 243259 , January 10, 2023
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.
FACTS
Petitioners are female flight attendants and members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP), the sole bargaining representative for Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) flight attendants. On July 11, 2001, PAL and FASAP entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for 2000-2005. Section 144(A) of this CBA provided for the compulsory retirement of female cabin attendants at age 55 and male cabin attendants at age 60. On July 29, 2004, petitioners filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, seeking to declare Section 144(A) null and void for being discriminatory against women in violation of the Constitution, the Labor Code, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The RTC granted the petition, declared the provision null and void, and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, declaring the CBA provision valid and binding. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether Section 144(A) of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement, which sets different compulsory retirement ages for female (55) and male (60) flight attendants, is valid.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals Decision, and reinstated the RTC’s declaration that Section 144(A) is null and void. The stipulation lacks basis, discriminates against women, and is contrary to law and public policy. The Court held that the provision constitutes discrimination based on sex, which is prohibited by the Constitution, the Labor Code, and CEDAW. The difference in retirement ages was based on outdated and stereotypical assumptions about women’s roles and capabilities, not on actual differences in job qualification or function. The right against discrimination is non-waivable and cannot be bargained away through a CBA. A void provision, such as this discriminatory clause, produces no legal effect. The Court also found the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees by the RTC to be proper.