G.R. No. 243259 , January 10, 2023
PATRICIA HALAGUEÑA, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The petitioners are female flight attendants of Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL). They challenge the validity of Section 144, Part A of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between PAL and the Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) for the years 2000 to 2005. The provision stipulates compulsory retirement at age fifty-five (55) for females and sixty (60) for males. The petitioners assert this provision discriminates against women and is void for being contrary to the Constitution, laws, and international conventions. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, upholding the CBA provision’s validity. The ponencia granted the petitioners’ appeal, and this Separate Concurring Opinion agrees with that conclusion.

ISSUE

Whether Section 144, Part A of the CBA, which imposes a compulsory retirement age of 55 for female cabin attendants and 60 for male cabin attendants, is valid.

RULING

The CBA provision is void for being discriminatory against women and contrary to law and public policy. The mere fact that the provision was mutually agreed upon by PAL and FASAP in a CBA does not shield it from judicial nullification if it is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Labor contracts are impressed with public interest. The provision creates a distinction based solely on gender, compelling women to retire five years earlier than men. The respondent failed to prove any reasonable business necessity or bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) justifying this differential treatment. The defense that the provision was intended for the benefit of women, based on stereotypes about their familial roles and physical appearance, is not a valid justification and instead perpetuates gender-based discrimination. Therefore, the petition is granted.