G.R. No. 243259 , January 10, 2023
PATRICIA HALAGUEÑA, ET AL., AND OTHER FEMALE FLIGHT ATTENDANTS OF PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioners are female flight attendants of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) and members of the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP). They were compulsorily retired at the age of 55 pursuant to a provision in the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which set the compulsory retirement age at 55 for females and 60 for males. Petitioners assailed this provision as discriminatory against female flight attendants. Respondent PAL maintained the policy was not discriminatory, arguing that female flight attendants belong to a special class of occupation requiring special standards for retirement.

ISSUE

Whether the compulsory retirement provision in the CBA, which sets different retirement ages for female and male flight attendants, is valid.

RULING

The concurring opinion of Justice Lazaro-Javier holds that the compulsory retirement provision is void for being discriminatory and contrary to the Constitution, law, and public policy. The opinion adduces several reasons:
1. The Constitution provides protective provisions ensuring the fundamental equality of women and men, full protection to labor with equality of employment opportunities, and protection for working women.
2. Article 135 of the Labor Code recognizes a woman’s right against discrimination in terms and conditions of employment based on sex.
3. Republic Act No. 10911 (Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act) prohibits imposing early retirement based on age. While the law admits exceptions like a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), PAL failed to prove such a qualification. A BFOQ requires proof that the qualification is reasonably related to the job’s essential operation and that there is a factual basis for believing all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification cannot perform the job. PAL merely claimed, without sufficient proof, that female flight attendants belong to a special class. The Court of Appeals’ agreement, based on “obvious biological difference,” falls short of proving a reasonable business necessity. There is no reasonable connection shown between one’s age and sex vis-à-vis the capacity to perform flight attendant duties, as both genders are exposed to the same tasks and demands.
4. The policy is a scheme to force female flight attendants to leave based on both age and gender.
Accordingly, the concurring opinion votes to GRANT the petition.