Dear PAO,

I have a question regarding my sister’s dismissal from her job as a flight attendant with an airline company here in the Philippines. She was dismissed solely because of her pregnancy. The company also denied her maternity leave, citing their policy. According to their policy, if a flight attendant becomes pregnant at any time during the term of her contract, her employment contract will be rendered void, and she will be terminated due to lack of medical fitness. Is this legal? Can the company terminate my sister’s employment because of her pregnancy?

Charlene

Dear Charlene,

Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides: “The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.” Meanwhile, Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution provides that: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

The first provision exhorts the State to “ensure” the fundamental equality before the law of women and men. This does not only mean that the Philippines shall not countenance nor lend legal recognition and approbation to measures that discriminate on the basis of one’s being male or female. It imposes an obligation to actively engage in securing the fundamental equality of men and women. [Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) v. Rebescencio, GR 198587, Jan. 14, 2015, penned by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen]

The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (Cedaw), signed and ratified by the Philippines on July 15, 1980, and on Aug. 5, 1981, respectively, is part of the law of the land. Article I of the Cedaw defines “discrimination against women.” It states:

“Article I. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term ‘discrimination against women’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on the basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”

It is also stated in the case mentioned above that the termination of employees based solely on sex is discriminatory. It is specifically stated in the case of Saudi Arabian Airlines (Saudia) v. Rebescencio (Ibid.):

“So informed and animated, we emphasize the glaringly discriminatory nature of Saudia’s policy. As argued by respondents, Saudia’s policy entails the termination of employment of flight attendants who become pregnant. At the risk of stating the obvious, pregnancy is an occurrence that pertains specifically to women. Saudia’s policy excludes from and restricts employment on the basis of no other consideration but sex. xxx

“Stripped of all unnecessary complexities, respondents were dismissed for no other reason than simply that they were pregnant. This is as wanton, oppressive, and tainted with bad faith as any reason for termination of employment can be. This is no ordinary case of illegal dismissal. This is a case of manifest gender discrimination. It is an affront not only to our statutes and policies on employees’ security of tenure, but more so, to the Constitution’s dictum of fundamental equality between men and women.”

Furthermore, apart from the constitutional policy on fundamental equality before the law of men and women, it is settled that contracts relating to labor and employment are impressed with the public interest. Article 1700 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:

“Article 1700. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects.”

In the situation you mentioned, your sister, who was a flight attendant, may not be terminated for the sole reason that she is pregnant. It is clear from the jurisprudence and laws discussed above that the company’s act of terminating an employee solely due to pregnancy is an act of discrimination. This is contrary to our laws and public policy.

We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]