Antonio Serrano v Gallant Maritime

G.R. No. 167614

March 24, 2009

Facts:
Petitioner was hired by Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Ltd.
(respondents) under a Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA)-approved
Contract of Employment. On March 19, 1998, the date of his departure, petitioner was
constrained to accept a downgraded employment contract for the position of Second Officer
with a monthly salary of US$1,000.00, upon the assurance and representation of respondents
that he would be made Chief Officer by the end of April 1998.
Petitioner's employment contract was for a period of 12 months or from March 19, 1998 up to
March 19, 1999, but at the time of his repatriation on May 26, 1998, he had served only two
(2) months and seven (7) days of his contract, leaving an unexpired portion of nine (9)
months and twenty-three (23) days.

Issue:
Does the subject clause violate Section 1, Article III of the Constitution, and Section 18,
Article II and Section 3, Article XIII on labor as a protected sector?

Law:
Section 18, Article II
Section 3, Article XIII

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner.

Opinion:
I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court.

To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing constitutional provisions
translate to economic security and parity: all monetary benefits should be equally enjoyed by
workers of similar category, while all monetary obligations should be borne by them in equal
degree; none should be denied the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the
burden imposed on, others in like circumstances.
Our present Constitution has gone further in guaranteeing vital social and economic rights to
marginalized groups of society, including labor. Under the policy of social justice, the law
bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane
justification that those with less privilege in life should have more in law. The OFW’s is
considered one of the vulnerable sectors and there are very few laws that protect them. The
OFWs should be given more protection by the law due to the sacrifices they make for their
family.

The enactment of the subject clause in R.A. No. 8042 introduced a differentiated rule of
computation of the money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on their employment
periods, in the process singling out one category whose contracts have an unexpired portion
of one year or more and subjecting them to the peculiar disadvantage of having their
monetary awards limited to their salaries for 3 months or for the unexpired portion thereof,
whichever is less, but all the while sparing the other category from such prejudice, simply
because the latter's unexpired contracts fall short of one year. This clause is truly unfair for
the OFWs creates a sub-layer of discrimination among OFWs whose contract periods are for
more than one year which should not be the case otherwise it would constitute a violation of
the equal protection clause.

Case History:
The LA rendered a Decision dated July 15, 1999, declaring the dismissal of petitioner illegal
and awarding him monetary benefits, to wit:

In a Decision dated June 15, 2000, the NLRC modified the LA Decision, to wit: The NLRC
corrected the LA's computation of the lump-sum salary awarded to petitioner by reducing the
applicable salary rate from US$2,590.00 to US$1,400.00 because R.A. No. 8042 "does not
provide for the award of overtime pay, which should be proven to have been actually
performed, and for vacation leave pay.

In a Decision dated December 8, 2004, the CA affirmed the NLRC ruling on the reduction of
the applicable salary rate.
Sto. Tomas vs Salac
G.R. No. 152642
November 13, 2012

Facts:
Sections 29 and 30 of the RA 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995 commanded the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to begin deregulating
within one year of its passage the business of handling the recruitment and migration of
overseas Filipino workers and phase out within five years the regulatory functions of the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
On April 17, 2002 the Philippine Association of Service Exporters, Inc. intervened in the case
before the Court, claiming that the RTC March 20, 2002 Decision gravely affected them since
it paralyzed the deployment abroad of OFWs and performing artists.

Issue:
Are Sections 6, 7 and 9 of RA 8042 valid and constitutional?

Law:
• RA 8042 Sec 6, 7 and 9

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8042 Sec 6, 7 and 9 are valid and constitutional.

Opinion:
One of the fundamental principles of labor is the exercise of police power as the strongest
means to achieve full protection to labor. This principle dictates the State’s capacity to
enforce laws within the country for the betterment of the health, safety and general welfare of
its inhabitants. In order for there to be a valid exercise of police power, the following
requisites must be present: 1) interests of the public generally and 2) means employed are
reasonably necessary to attain the objective sought. In this case, there is a valid exercise of
police power as the welfare of migrant workers are imbued with public interest and the
prohibition on the referral docking system is consistent with providing regulations for the
health and safety of the people. The State in its exercise of its police power can impose
penalties to afford protection to labor. The State can impose penalties to discourage people
from seeking employment in other countries where work conditions are considered hostile by
the government. Based on the doctrine of parens patriae, the government should act as
parents to its people and it could impose regulations for the protection of its people.
Case History:
• The Manila RTC ruled that RA 8042 Sec 6, 7 and 9 are unconstitutional.
Patricia Halaguena v PAL
G.R. No. 243259
January 10, 2023

Facts:
On July 11, 2001, respondent and FASAP entered into a Collective Bargaining
Agreement3 incorporating the terms and conditions of their agreement for the years 2000 to
2005, hereinafter referred to as PAL-FASAP CBA. In the CBA contained a clause where the
compulsory retirement shall be fifty-five (55) for females and sixty (60) for males.

In a letter dated July 22, 2003,4 petitioners and several female cabin crews manifested that the
aforementioned CBA provision on compulsory retirement is discriminatory, and demanded
for an equal treatment with their male counterparts.

Issue:
Is Section 144(A) of the 2000-2005 PAL-FASAP CBA is discriminatory against women, and
thus void for being contrary to the Constitution, laws, and international conventions.

Law:
Article XIII, Section 14 Constitution
Article 133 of Labor Code
Article 11(1) CEDAW
Republic Act No. 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women

Ruling:
The Court ruled in favor of petitioner.
Opinion:

I agree with the ruling of the Supreme Court.

The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed
with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Labor contracts are
imbued with public interest and therefore are subject to the police power of the state. A CBA,
as a labor contract, is not merely contractual in nature but impressed with public interest. If
the retirement provisions in the CBA run contrary to law, public morals, or public policy,
such provisions may very well be voided. Due to the CBA being contrary to not only the
Labor Code but also the Constitution and the CEDAW, the CBA should be voided.

It is the State’s basic policy to protect working women and to ensure “equal work
opportunities regardless of sex” and this includes the prohibition of discrimination by the
employer. Equal work opportunities suggest fairness for all employees. No one should have
poorer life choices because of things they cannot change. Women should not be made to
suffer an early retirement just by reason of sex if the same is not voluntary. The State should
afford even more special protection to the rights of women considering that they are one of
the vulnerable sectors. Being one of the vulnerable sectors, the State should extend more
protection to guarantee the rights of women are not violated. Considering our generation
today, women are even more empowered and stronger than men, so there is no reason for the
discriminatory clause of the CBA if the reason for the early retirement is a women’s fragility
which is not true anymore in our generation.

Case History:
In its May 22, 2015 Decision, the trial court granted the petition for declaratory relief and
declared Section 144(A) of the PAL-FASAP 2000-2005 CBA null and void for being
discriminatory.

In a May 31, 2018 Decision, the Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the
Regional Trial Court, and ruled in favor of PAL