Saudi Arabian Airlines v Rebesencio

G.R. No. 198587

January 14, 2015

Facts

Respondents were recruited and hired by Saudia as Temporary Flight Attendants with the
accreditation and approval of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. After undergoing
seminars required by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration for deployment overseas, as
well as training modules offered by Saudia, and after working as Temporary Flight Attendants,
respondents became Permanent Flight Attendants. They then entered into Cabin Attendant contracts
with Saudia. Respondents continued their employment with Saudia until they were separated from
service on various dates in 2006. Respondents contended that the termination of their employment was
illegal. They alleged that the termination was made solely because they were pregnant. As respondents
alleged, they had informed Saudia of their respective pregnancies and had gone through the necessary
procedures to process their maternity leaves. Initially, Saudia had given its approval but later on informed
respondents that its management in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia had disapproved their maternity leaves. In
addition, it required respondents to file their resignation letters. Respondents were told that if they did
not resign, Saudia would terminate them all the same. The threat of termination entailed the loss of
benefits, such as separation pay and ticket discount entitlements. Respondents filed a complaint with the
Labor Arbiter against Saudia and its officers for illegal dismissal and for underpayment, along with moral
and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Petitioner Airlines contests the Labor Arbiter’s jurisdiction,
as the contract’s points referred to foreign law and that Respondents had no cause of action since they
already voluntarily resigned. Executive Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint, but on appeal the NLRC
reversed the Labor Arbiter’s decision and denied Petitioner Airlines’ Motion for reconsideration, hence
the current appeal.

Issue

Whether or not the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have jurisdiction over Saudi Arabian Airlines and
apply Philippine jurisdiction over the dispute

Ruling

Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. Summons were validly served on Saudi Airlines and jurisdiction over it
validly acquired. A plain application of Section 3(d) of the Foreign Investments Act leads to no other
conclusion than that Saudia Airlines is a foreign corporation doing business in the Philippines. As such,
Saudia may be sued in the Philippines and is subject to the jurisdiction of Philippine tribunals. Moreover,
since there is no real distinction between “Saudia Jeddah” and “Saudia Manila’’ - the latter being nothing
more than Saudia’s local office – service of summons to Saudia’s office in Manila sufficed to vest
jurisdiction over Saudia’s person in Philippine tribunals.