You are on page 1of 1

Article 136

Zialcita, et al. V. PAL, RO4-3-3398-76, 20 February 1977

Complainant Zialcita, an international flight stewardess of PAL, wasdischarged from the service on account of
her marriage. In separating Zialcita, palinvoked its policy which stated that flight attendants must be single, and
shall beautomatically separated from employment in the event they subsequently getmarried. They claimed th
at this policy was in accordance with Article 132 of thelabor Code. On the other hand, Zialcita questioned her t
ermination on account of her marriage, invoking Article 136 of the same law.

Issue: W/N Zialcita was validly terminated on account of her marriage.

When Presidential Decree No. 148, otherwise known as thewomen and Child Labor Law, was promulgated in
13 March 1973, PAL’s policy hadmet its doom. However, since no one challenged its validity, the said policy w
asable to obtain a momentary reprieve. Section 8 of PD148 is exactly the sameprovision reproduced verbatim i
n Article 136 of the Labor Code, which waspromulgated on 1 May 1974 and took effect six months later.Althou
gh Article 132 enjoins the Secretary of Labor to establish standardsthat will ensure the safety and health of wo
men employees and in appropriatecases shall by regulation require employers to determine appropriate minim
umstandards for termination in special occupations, such as those of flight attendants,it is logical to presume th
at, in the absence of said standards or regulations whichare yet to be established, the policy of PAL against ma
rriage is patently illegal.
•Article 136 is not intended to apply only to women employed in ordinaryoccupations, or it should have categori
cally expressed so. The sweepingintendment of the law, be it on special or ordinary occupations, is reflected in
the whole text and supported by Article 135 that speaks of non-discriminationon the employment of women